It appears a number of people want immigration to be curtailed. The problem is not the figure some people want but HOW to get there.
Andrew Bragg came up with a figure for net overseas migration of 180,000. He did not not say how he would get to that figure but said it would have a 'modest' effect on the university sector.
Pauline Hanson has confirmed that one nation would reduce it to 130,000 but that back packers and the like needed for agriculture would be exempt.
Cutting immigration down to the above levels would hit :
- back packers and the like who work in agriculture
- skilled labour for housing, manufacturing etc
- Family reunions
- Universities
- The federal budget
Now if you exempt agriculture from immigration cuts it therefore means you are going to cut larger in other areas.
You will have noticed various spokesmen (yeah they are mostly men) for employers associations saying quite loudly they need skilled immigrants for businesses as that labour simply is not avaalible locally.
Family reunions would probably be the first target as it has less economic impact and affects less people who vote!
Universities would be hit bigtime as foreign students is a large revenue earner for them. There would be need for at least some, if not significant, boost to universities funding from the federal government.
The federal budget would be hit by several billion dollars.
Thus what do we have. Wages would increase as highly skilled immigrants are reduced. you also need large spending cuts and/or large increases in taxation or a blow-out in the deficit.
Until we hear HOW immigration is to be cut to levels below 200,000 then I would suggest the people have no idea of what they are talking about!
