Its proposal to regulate the size and composition of the temporary migrant population has merit, but other aspects are blunt and punitive.
The thing about One Nation’s new immigration policy is not that it contains ideas. It is that parts of it deserve serious discussion.
Its size is determined by two flows a government can control: the net intake of people on temporary visas, and the number who convert to permanent status.
If these flows are kept equal, the temporary population stabilises.
Recent political debate has focused on net overseas migration: the difference between migrant arrivals and departures.
Nom provides a rough measure of all migration.
Some parts cannot and should not be regulated, such as movements of Australian citizens. Others, such as permanent migration, are already well regulated. Temporary migration, by contrast, was deregulated 25 years ago and now needs reviewing.
Regulating temporary migration means controlling how many temporary migrants arrive, how long they stay, how many leave and how many become permanent residents. What is changing is the political consensus about whether it is desirable.
Following Canada’s lead in regulating the temporary migrant population could help Australia avoid the problems of previous “guest worker” programs. One Nation deserves credit for putting this on the table.
Beyond this, however, its policy jumps from real problems to blunt, kneejerk cuts that would do more harm than good.
First, it proposes reducing the temporary migrant population by 750,000 over three years by pushing net overseas migration into negative territory.
Second, One Nation’s approach to departures is too punitive.