Amazulu

From today's Times. They've got it wrong about who Australia wants, skills wise, but it's interesting none the less.:

New wave of migrant 'Poms'
By Roger Maynard
The exodus of Britons for a new life in Australia has doubled in two years



HALF a century after the “£10 Poms� began their mass exodus in search of a sunnier and more prosperous life in Australia, migrants from Britain are heading there in ever increasing numbers.
Figures published by Australia’s Immigration Department have revealed that the flow of immigrants from Britain has more than doubled in the past two years, jumping from 8,749 in 2002 to 18,272.



But, unlike the 1950s and 1960s when thousands of predominantly working-class Britons each paid £10 to travel to the so-called Lucky Country, enticed by the promise of good weather, cheap housing and the guarantee of a well-paid, blue collar job, these days only well-educated professionals need apply.

To have any chance of becoming an Australian resident now you need to be aged under 44, have a university education and, preferably, be a qualified, doctor, dentist, radiographer, biochemist, architect or engineer.

It also helps to be British under the government’s tighter immigration application rules, which clearly favour white, English-speaking, tertiary- educated Anglophiles.

It is the first time that British and Irish migrants have outnumbered those from South-East Asia since the Government of John Howard, the Prime Minister, was elected nearly nine years ago.

Canberra’s Australian National University attributes the change to immigration policies introduced by Mr Howard’s government.

The changes, brought in under Philip Ruddock, the former Immigration Minister, drew strong criticism that Australia was abandoning the region’s needy and displaced.

The trend is in marked contrast to the 1990s when, under the Hawke and Keating Labor governments, immigrants from South-East Asia were encouraged to settle in Australia.

Settlers from English-speaking nations accounted for almost half the 111,000 new migrants in Australia last year, compared with only 37 per cent when the Liberal-National Party Coalition was elected in l996.

The increase is mainly because of Mr Howard’s policy to encourage migrants whose background is considered to make it easier for them to assimilate to Australian society and who would be able to make an immediate contribution to the economy through their work and financial commitment.

By contrast, the quota for those immigrants who seek to move to Australia from Third World countries through family reunions or by applying for refugee status has been reduced. Forty-two per cent of immigrants now have university degrees compared with 32 per cent before the balance started to change in l999, according to Deborah Cobb-Clark, a demographer. “More people are coming in through the skills filtering process and the filtering process has itself become more effective,� she said.

“If you take an economic assessment then there’s no doubt there has been a positive outcome. But I guess I’d remind people that economic outcome is really only one of the goals when it comes to an overall migration policy.� Ms Cobb-Clark said that some of these other goals included humanitarian considerations and family reunions.

“It’s true that things have changed since a number of these categories were dropped or the total intake amended,� she said. It could be argued that this policy is somewhat out of step with what a lot of other countries are doing.�

She added: “There is some suggestion Australia is taking those with the best skills as opposed to the most needy.�

Australia has no difficulty attracting migrants and can afford to be selective. A booming economy with low unemployment and inflation rates, plus an attractive environment and an agreeable climate, mean that people are queueing up to gain residency.

The Government also knows that well-qualified migrants will find work quicker and not be a burden on the state. Recent research shows that less than 10 per cent of new migrants remain unemployed 18 months after arriving in Australia, compared with more than 22 per cent before immigration authorities tightened the rules.

Australia is still essentially a multicultural nation, boasting a melting pot of mainly European, Middle Eastern and Asian cultures. But tougher immigration rules will clearly have a social and racial impact.

Deadmeat

Journalists getting the facts right as ever ...

Amazulu

Yeah, great research from one of the world's most famous newspaper.

renth

More rubbish.

It's like listening to the commentary from "A Place Down Under"

tonyk38

A very, very, very good reason not to read any newspapers ever, as they are incapable of getting their facts straight about anything.....

ABCDiamond

A similar report from The Weekend Australian also includes comments from the original report such as:

"the total number of migrants from Britain and Ireland settling in Australia in the past two years, with the numbers jumping from 8749 in 2001-02 to 18,272 in 2003-04. The total has grown 90 per cent compared with the Howard Government's first year.
This compared with 16,799 migrants arriving last year from Southeast Asian nations"

"The Department of Immigration's annual review of where permanent settlers come from and where they go shows immigration from the main English-speaking countries rising by two-thirds over the past eight years. The number of Indians permanently settling in Australia has tripled to 8135, while the number of South Africans and Zimbabweans has doubled to 7469."

"Another positive outcome of the Government's policies, according to demographer Deborah Cobb-Clark's research, has been the dramatic cut in the unemployment rate among newly arrived migrants."

"The research conducted by Dr Cobb-Clark showed that since changes were implemented only 9.9 per cent of new immigrants remained unemployed 18 months after arriving. The unemployment rate was 22.3 per cent before the changes."

That last bit must sound good for many people
In simplistic terms it would appear that the new policies must be targetting imigrants that would be able to find work as against those that may find it harder.

chocaholic

How annoying and predictable that article from The Times is! I would expect a bit more analysis or even a bit of research.......but I suppose I'm just not being realistic!

jad n rich

Agree!

Australia ditched its white only immigrant policy back when 1970 something?

As far as I know we havent particuarly targeted one type of immigrant since then let alone it being poms in favour of asians, both lots have equal opportunity to apply. No wonder so many poms have weird ideas about australila with this type of cra! being written. My guess is the big swing from UK can be attributed to the very favourable image british tv portrays of australia in brit tv's eyes the place can do no wrong.

Also you might need to be under 44 but whats the degree cra!, never heard of a degree in bricklaying, degree in plumbing, degree in hairdressing, degree in supermarket stacking perhaps

I think the article makes australia sound like its morped back to the 70's and is actively seeking white people, thats wrong

tonyk38

The Times, like every other British Newspaper isn't exactly known for 'balance' or 'fairness'.

They didn't even get the age thing right.......you can be 44 and still apply.
Also, whenever I've discussed Aus with people here in Britain, an amazing number think the colour bar still applies, and its because of articles like this!