AARON PATRICK: Australia needs to start thinking seriously about the cost of the humanitarian visa program
AARON PATRICK: As the government lowers net overseas migration, it needs to consider if the expensive humanitarian visa program should be reviewed too.
Three weeks ago, something remarkable happened in Canberra.
On the morning of August 27, Australians were told the number of refugees accepted would be cut from 20,000 to 13,750. By the afternoon, courtesy of a text message from Anthony Albanese to an ABC journalist, the announcement had been cancelled.
The most expensive component of the immigration program — one with a quarter of a million applicants — would persist unchanged, a decision that the Opposition on Wednesday said would cost Australians about $7 billion over a decade.
Sign up to The Nightly's newsletters.
Get the first look at the digital newspaper, curated daily stories and breaking headlines delivered to your inbox.
By continuing you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy.What exactly happened on that day remains a mystery. Did Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke brief a newspaper without warning the Prime Minister? Did Mr Albanese succumb to pressure from the refugee lobby, which exerts great influence within the Labor Party?
Mr Albanese could have cleared up the confusion on Wednesday. Liberal leader Angus Taylor asked him in question time if the Cabinet or Treasurer Jim Chalmers agreed to a policy reversal on humanitarian visas, which include refugees and victims of persecution.
Mr Albanese didn’t answer the question. It was left to Mr Burke to bluster about the Government’s pride in its “generous” approach.
Small but expensive
On Thursday the Home Affairs Minister is due to set out the Government’s immigration policy at the National Press Club. Under pressure from One Nation’s rise, he is widely expected to propose specific measures to significantly reduce what is known as net overseas migration, a way of measuring changes in the population.
Refugees are a small share. But they are disproportionately expensive. That’s because they are entitled to full access to welfare from the day they arrive, instead of having to wait four years like other immigrants.
They receive free housing and other benefits too. Without significant Government support, refugees’ children are vulnerable to falling into poverty, prolonging a cycle of social dysfunction that is unfair on them and the society that has welcomed them.
Raising concerns about the expense of the refugee program is not racist. Just ask Abul Rizvi, a former immigration official.
“The cost is huge,” he says. “We need to carefully think about that. You can’t take things off the table if you are going to maintain a balanced intake.”
Mr Rizvi argues for a more organised approach. Governments from both sides of politics have long accepted a “demand driven” approach, which set guidelines about the kind of people Australia wanted and let the system do the rest.
Under pressure from voters struggling with crowded suburbs, housing shortages, traffic congestion and a sense of being overwhelmed, both main parties now want stricter controls imposed on one of the most important decisions any society can make: who should be allowed to join.
In Parliament on Wednesday, independent MP Helen Haines reminded the nation of the importance of foreigners to keeping Australia running. In the country areas of Victoria she represents, employers report shortages of nurses, fruit pickers and abattoir workers.
If Australia is to deprive businesses of access to these essential employees, driving up costs for all, then it would seem reasonable, as Mr Rizvi argues, that increases in the refugee intake made by Mr Albanese’s Government are reviewed.
Australia is a generous country, as Mr Burke says, but all generosity has its limits.
