As the chorus blaming immigration for all society’s ills grows, numbers are selectively recruited to suit the cause, while a little perspective and the benefits we’ve gained from strong immigration are ignored. A quick example is the constant repetition of the “record high immigration” phrase. Yes, in absolute numbers the annual 190,000 permanent visas plus humanitarian cases is the highest we’ve done, as was the 250,100 NOM for the year to the end of September, but in percentage terms – a better guide to the perceived impact of migration on the ground – we’re nowhere near it. Loading Our 250,100 NOM (the extras on top of permanent and humanitarian visas mainly being international students on temporary visas followed by 457 temporary workers) was for a country of 24.7 million – 1 per cent. In 1950, a little Australia of 8.2 million had NOM of 153,685 – 1.9 per cent. That 1950 NOM would have included precious few temporary migrants. The rate of permanent migration was double what it is now. More recently, to consider the total population growth that so concerns critics, Australia’s resident population increase averaged 1.6 per cent per annum over the five years to 2016, higher than the 1.4 per cent we averaged over the 20 years to 2016, but lower than the 1.8 per cent over the preceding five years. We managed 1.6 per cent again last year – so on an 11-year view, our population growth rate has slowed.

What’s more, it’s arguable that NOM is overstated by about 20 per cent. A migrant getting off the plane here adds one to our NOM total. If he or she eventually decides to get back on a plane, perhaps deciding to retire to a Greek island, it’s a subtraction from NOM. But if that migrant “leaves” Australia by dying here, the Australian Bureau of Statistics counts the death as a subtraction from our “natural” population increase. In 2016, the most recent period with detailed information on deaths, 50,664 foreign-born people died in Australia. Only 339 of them were normally resident overseas, so an extra 50,325 migrants left Australia than are counted in NOM. Delete migrants leaving in pine boxes from the “natural” figure and include them in NOM, hey presto, NOM and natural are roughly level pegging, instead of the 63 per cent to 37 per cent split that contributes an exaggerated optic to the anti-migration picture. Facts versus perceptions That’s a big picture argument about perceptions. There’s much more to debate about in various migration details.

For example, Bob Birrell, a constant critic of our immigration program through his Australian Population Research Institute, has had another crack at the skilled migration program which accounts for 130,000 of our annual 190,000 non-humanitarian permanent visas. Birrell claims the program is not needed, employers would barely notice if it was scrapped, that it includes skills that are not in short supply and that most non-English-speaking professionals end up not working as professionals. There are problems with the list of skills in the program, but his core attack using census data on non-English-speaking professionals has been sunk by a former Immigration Department deputy secretary, Abul Rizvi. “As Birrell would know better than anyone, high-level census data is a poor tool for making conclusions regarding the effectiveness of skilled migration visa categories,” writes Rizvi. “Migrants who put ‘skilled’ in response to a census question may have entered Australia under a range circumstances, including via the humanitarian program, the family stream; or as secondary applicants in the skill stream (eg the spouse of a primary skilled migrant)… “It is surprising Birrell makes no reference in his report to the Continuous Survey of Australia’s Migrants (CSAM), which does survey primary migrants in the skill stream. The 2015 CSAM Report says ‘at the six-month stage of settlement, almost nine in ten skilled migrants (ie primary migrants in the skill stream) were employed. More than three quarters were working in full-time jobs and more than six in ten were in highly skilled employment. On the basis of these measures, skilled migrants significantly outperformed Australia’s general population. Skilled migrants also had higher earnings on average than the Australian population, but unemployment was slightly worse than the national average.’ It should be noted these are outcomes only six months after arrival.” The Indian-engineer-turned-taxi-driver myth

Such is the growing popularity of knocking migration though, Birrell’s contribution to perpetuating the Indian-engineer-taxi-driver image gets noticed and Rizvi’s demolition doesn’t. And that’s only one example. Australian National University demographer Dr Liz Allen has taken aim at Tony Walker’s endorsement on these pages of Tony Abbott’s call to nearly halve our migration program, tweeting that public disquiet about population pressures was being fuelled by such articles that were “false on facts, blaming population rather than politicians” for infrastructure problems. Loading Our migration program is being blamed for everything from housing prices in Sydney and Melbourne to low wages growth to traffic congestion. It’s a measure of how myopic Sydney and Melbourne commentary has become that it would have the nation’s economic parameters set to suit those two cities’ public transport shortcomings. Migration’s contribution to sustained economic growth is increasingly given short shrift with an often-cited Productivity Commission report finding there were negligible positive or negative economic impacts.

What much of the debate actually shows is how little hard data there are on many aspects of our population and migration policies and how poorly thought-out – or simply not thought-out – are the thought bubbles about slashing present levels. There is a reasonable suspicion that anything Tony Abbott says is primarily about internal Liberal Party politics, from getting cosy with Pauline Hanson to wanting to cut the current 190,000 non-humanitarian permanent visa quota to 110,000 – a figure apparently plucked for no better reason than that’s what it averaged over John Howard’s Prime Ministership. Cherry-picking reports It’s a figure that shows Abbott and his supporters don’t begin to understand our immigration system. In round numbers, those 190,000 permanent visas are split between 60,000 family reunion and 130,000 skilled visas. It’s very hard for anyone with a heart to cut the family reunion numbers – nearly 80 per cent are spouses, 6 per cent children and 14 per cent parents. No, it’s not a scheme that brings in cousins and their families and so on.

So that means the 130,000 skilled visas would have to bear the brunt of the suggested 80,000 cut, taking them down to 50,000. But it’s not that simple. Only about half of the visas are for primary skilled applicants – the other half are partners and children. (One of the things Bob Birrell apparently overlooked.) Thus in a world where there is a war for talent, Abbott is suggesting we should only grant about 25,000 primary skilled permanent visas. It’s a tiny figure when, administered properly, skilled migrants enable more jobs to be created here. Which comes back to shallowness of much migration debate and the cherry-picking of reports. For a different perspective, cue Jonathan Portes, Professor of Economics and Public Policy at King's College, London. In a submission on UK immigration to the Lords Economic Affairs Select Committee, the Professor took aim at common immigration myths and misconceptions.

Australia is not the UK and neither country is the USA, from where key misconceptions have sprung, but Portes cites evidence that strong UK immigration did not cost natives jobs, had negligible or no impact on wages, boosted productivity and GDP per capita. Loading Much of the more reasoned local criticism of strong migration, such as Ross Gittins’, has concentrated on its ability to boost total GDP but not per capita GDP. Portes quotes quite different opinions: “Jaumotte et al find that a 1 per cent increase in the migrant share of the adult population results in an increase in GDP per capita and productivity of approximately 2 per cent.” Imagine that – increased migration delivering vastly more GDP growth than the government reckons business tax cuts would achieve.

Such things take time. Doubters will point to the recent Australian experience where GDP per capita growth has been low despite strong immigration. Or maybe we’re failing to grasp how much lower that growth would be without the annual infusion of fresh, enthusiastic talent.