Australia's immigration policies have long been a topic of debate, and a recent report suggests a novel approach to managing the country's population growth. The report proposes setting immigration targets to achieve a 'stable temporary population', addressing the challenges posed by the increasing number of non-permanent residents. This shift in focus from net overseas migration to the 'scale of temporariness' is a crucial step in understanding and managing Australia's demographic landscape.
The report, authored by Alan Gamlen and Peter McDonald, highlights a concerning trend: the share of temporary migrants in Australia's population has more than doubled in the past 15 years, from 2.7% in 2010 to over 6%. This rapid growth has put immense pressure on public services and housing, sparking debates about social cohesion and the capacity to accommodate a growing population. The authors argue that the current preoccupation with net overseas migration figures has overshadowed the need for a more nuanced discussion on the 'scale of temporariness'.
One of the key insights from the report is the Canadian experience. Canada, in late 2024, implemented a radical migration reset, including a cap on temporary arrivals, aiming to reduce the share of temporary migrants from 7.6% to 5% of the population. This policy has led to a shrinking population for the first time since the 1940s, and experts believe it has successfully alleviated pressure on housing costs. Gamlen suggests that Australia can learn from this approach, but with a critical eye.
In my opinion, the Canadian strategy raises important questions about the arbitrary nature of immigration targets. While the 5% target may have been a starting point, Gamlen argues that it was arbitrary and that the rapid reduction in temporary migration caused economic harm. Australia, he suggests, should adopt a more thoughtful approach, setting a specific number of temporary migrants and managing long-term population growth by adjusting the number of temporary visa holders entering the permanent program.
The report's central argument is that Australia needs a better way to govern 'temporariness'. The goal is to achieve a stable temporary population, ensuring that migration is managed in a way that aligns with the country's infrastructure and housing capacity. This approach challenges the traditional focus on net overseas migration, emphasizing the need to control the stock of temporary migrants. The question, as Gamlen poses, is not about the politically attractive net migration number but about the scale of temporariness that Australia can sustain.
This proposal is particularly fascinating because it shifts the conversation from a focus on the number of immigrants to a more nuanced understanding of the impact of temporary migration. It raises a deeper question: how can a country effectively manage its population growth while ensuring social cohesion and infrastructure sustainability? Australia's unique demographic challenges demand innovative solutions, and this report offers a fresh perspective that could shape the country's immigration policies for years to come.
