What did he say?
Matt Thistlethwaite, the federal assistant minister for immigration, spoke to the Sydney Institute a few weeks ago.
He explained how the Albanese Labor government was planning to fix Australia’s broken migration system.
And he said something damning.
“For many decades Australia hasn’t had a migration plan. We haven’t had a migration strategy,” he said.
“As a result, Australia’s migration policies have lacked direction and purpose.
“Migration’s been unresponsive to Australia’s needs. It has provided marginal economic benefit and hasn’t enhanced labour productivity.
“It has been concentrated in capital cities, creating some social tension, and skills shortages have persisted despite steady flows of new arrivals with needed skills and competencies.
“The reliance on labour migration to solve our skills gaps has led to under-investment in vocational education with commensurate falls in apprenticeships and traineeships in key sectors, particularly services, which are going to be vital to the maintenance of our standard of living with an ageing population,” he said.
Come again?
Mr Thistlethwaite says migration has provided “marginal economic benefit” to Australia for decades?
That’s a scathing assessment.
There’s been no migration plan for decades
You can catch his speech in the video below. (MacroBusiness reported on it last week.)
Mr Thistlethwaite didn’t stick dogmatically to the written text of his speech, so there are some discrepancies between the text and what he said to the audience. When I quote him, I’m quoting what he said to the audience.
In his speech, he didn’t attack the concept of immigration.
But when comparing Australia’s post-war immigration program to our contemporary immigration policies (and their outcomes), he spoke favourably of the post-war program and was extremely critical of our modern program.
“Without a doubt, post-war migration was a winner for Australia and for Australians,” he said.
“I believe it’s fair to say that most Australians would see it that way as well.
“But I think it’s also fair to say that since the 1980s, many Australians haven’t had the same fondness for migration.”
Why does he think Australians have developed a more negative view of migration in recent decades?
He blames toxic politics.
“The bipartisanship for migration post-war seemed to evaporate in the 1990s as some civic leaders sought to stoke fear and division for political gain regarding migration rather than seeing it as a net positive for our nation,” he said.
“As a result, governments were reluctant to put in place a strategy for migration so that we could plan for the levels of migration required for our nation and the supports that were needed to settle new arrivals so that they could make a productive contribution to our economy.
“So for many decades Australia hasn’t had a migration plan.”
It’s an interesting argument.
According to Mr Thistlethwaite, the breakdown of bipartisanship for immigration in the 1990s meant our major political parties became reluctant to develop a long-term plan for migration, given the political risks involved.
And without a proper migration strategy, problems have been festering in the migration system for decades, and it’s affected voters’ attitudes towards immigration itself.
Is that true?
If it is, it wouldn’t have helped that concerns about Australia’s falling birth rate in the late 1990s and early 2000s, which saw regular calls to boost immigration to prevent our population declining, led to a substantial increase in immigration from the mid-2000s onwards.
It also wouldn’t have helped that it has suited parts of Australia’s business community, and farming community, to have cheap and exploitable labour coming to Australia for the past couple of decades.
Those are big things to deal with in an unplanned system when social tensions are rising.
The system isn’t ‘fit for purpose’
At any rate, Mr Thistlethwaite says that’s why the Albanese government asked former public service chief Martin Parkinson to conduct a “wholesale review” of Australia’s migration system in late 2022.
The final report from that review, which was handed to the government in March 2023, found Australia’s migration system was “not fit for purpose”.
“The objectives of the program are unclear, and successive governments and policymakers have responded to challenges through piecemeal reforms which have not addressed fundamental underlying issues,” the review found.
“Australia now has a migration program that fails to attract the most highly skilled migrants and fails to enable business to efficiently access workers.
“At the same time, there is clear evidence of systemic exploitation and the risk of an emerging permanently temporary underclass.
“Cumulatively, these factors erode public confidence.”
In December 2023, the Albanese government then released its Migration Strategy for Australia, and declared: “Australia now has a strategy for its migration system.”
Mr Thistlethwaite says he’s determined to fix our migration system so it benefits all Australians again:
“That includes fixing an overwhelming visa backlog, shortcomings in international education, and widespread visa system abuses,” he told the Sydney Institute last month.
“We are also tackling exploitation of visa holders and misuse of the system by allowing mobility between employers for migrants who’ve experienced exploitation at work.
“The Parkinson Review found that there were too many – 1.8 million – temporary migrants living in Australia.
“Too many of them faced a complex and lengthy pathway to permanent residence.
“So, the government agreed that it was not in Australia’s national interest to maintain a large proportion of temporary entrants who have no pathway to permanency or no future to citizenship.
“The review said we needed a long-term horizon that supports stable and predictable population growth and allows more effective planning of infrastructure, housing and services to meet the needs of all Australian residents.”
Mr Thistlethwaite says the federal government will now work with the states and territories to plan migration over a longer timeframe.
He says planning will be based on the best available population forecasts and economic data.
And the migration system will stop being used as a substitute for upskilling local workers. Instead, it will have to be well-targeted to connect skilled migrants with Australia’s genuine skills needs.
“We will also be conducting regular reviews of regional skilled migration settings to ensure the regions are at the forefront of migration planning,” he said.
“Our new migration strategy is bringing migration back to sustainable levels, ensuring we have the skills we need for the future and, ultimately, making sure the system is working in the interests of all Australians.
“Australia once again has a coherent plan for migration.”
Will it deliver on its promise? Will it fail if “civic leaders” keep stoking fear and division about migrants for political gain?
A lot will be riding on it.
