Former foreign minister Bobb Carr expresses his view that the Australian government should reduce the immigrants intake by 50 percent because now the population of Australia has reached 24 million.
Mr. Carr is hardly alone in his concerns about the subsequent pressure on the various elements of daily life. Public sentiments against immigration has increased worldwide to the maximum. While many governments struggle to gain momentum with socio-ecomomic issues, public figures should stop tarnishing immigration as a threat. But infact, a well-organized immigration is a must for the safety and the increase in prosperity of Australia in the days to come.
The average number of Australian women have less than two babies due to the low fertility rate. Without migration, the actual population of Australia would remain steady at around 25 million till 2045. Nevertheless, the composition of the very population will consist of many more senior citizens rather than the working age people to support them.The country will definitely require more people in order to advance as a nation.
According to Australian Bureau of Statistics, the last year’s population of Australia has increased by 53 percent and 47 percent through immigration and by natural increase respectively. The bulk has come from skilled migration.
The table above reflects policy priorities as expressed by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, which says: ‘The purpose of migration is to build the economy, shape society, support the labour market and reunite family.’
As per Mr. CARR, the growth in population of Australia (1.42 percent) is same as the third world population growth but it is exactly not true. It’s nothing in comparison to world’s highest Niger which, is at 4.1 percent and also lower than developed countries like Israel and Singapore that are at 1.59 and 1.66 percent respectively.
The world population reached 7.3 billion in 2015. There are more than 1 billion people in both India and China. In terms of population density, Australia lags far behind in comparison to the world’s mega cities like Tokyo, Delhi and New York.
However, Mr Carr has chosen to make migration an argument about national identity, saying ‘we (Australians) would lose “something of ourselves” by having to “live in a unit in a high-rise tower”‘. It’s unclear what Carr really means but it could be interpreted as a view that the many already living in high-rise tower units are somehow non-Australian. Now again even more mystifying was Mr Carr’s emphasis that cutting down the overall immigration was ‘compatible’ with Labor’s plans to increase Australia’s refugee intake.
Australia will definitely have less skilled and family working migrants if immigration is to be reduced by up to half i.e, around 100,000. And if more refugees are allowed to let in then it’s more likely that they will rely on government services. This seems to be conflicting with his view that Australia’s economy should focus on export-led advancement and stop relying on an expansion in its domestic market. More workers, managers and professionals will be required to achieve this. If they are not coming from natural increases or from immigration, where are these people going to come from?
Source: the interpreter