Editing Immigration to Australia (section)

===Economic growth and aging population===
Another element in the immigration debate is a concern to alleviate adverse impacts arising from Australia's ageing population. In the 1990s, the former [[Treasurer of Australia|Federal Treasurer]] [[Peter Costello]] stated that Australia is underpopulated due to a low birth rate, and that negative population growth will have adverse long-term effects on the economy as the population ages and the labour market becomes less competitive.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.smh.com.au/news/national/costello-hatches-censustime-challenge-procreate-and-cherish/2006/07/24/1153593272565.html | title=Costello hatches census-time challenge: procreate and cherish | date=25 July 2006 | work=The Sydney Morning Herald | access-date=20 February 2020 | archive-date=2 January 2017 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170102150849/http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/costello-hatches-censustime-challenge-procreate-and-cherish/2006/07/24/1153593272565.html | url-status=live }}</ref> To avoid this outcome the government increased immigration to fill gaps in labour markets and introduced a [[Baby Bonus|subsidy]] to encourage families to have more children.{{Citation needed|date=January 2017}} However, [[Antinatalism|opponents of population growth]] such as [[Sustainable Population Australia]] do not accept that population growth will decline and reverse, based on current immigration and fertility projections.<ref name="Goldie">Goldie, J. (23 February 2006)  [http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4163 "Time to stop all this growth"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210225141712/http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4163 |date=25 February 2021 }} (Retrieved 30 October 2006)</ref>

There is debate over whether [[Replacement migration|immigration can slow the ageing]] of Australia's population. In a research paper entitled ''Population Futures for Australia: the Policy Alternatives'', Peter McDonald claims that "it is demographic nonsense to believe that immigration can help to keep our population young."<ref name="PFFAPA">McDonald, P., Kippen, R. (1999) [http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/1999-2000/2000rp05.htm Population Futures for Australia: the Policy Alternatives] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110818001206/http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/1999-2000/2000rp05.htm |date=18 August 2011 }}</ref> However, according to Creedy and Alvarado (p.&nbsp;99),<ref>{{cite book|title=Population Ageing, Migration and Social Expenditure |date=9 September 2009 |isbn=978-1858987248 |last1=Alvarado |first1=José |last2=Creedy |first2=John |publisher=Edward Elgar }}</ref> by 2031 there will be a 1.1 per cent fall in the proportion of the population aged over 65 if net migration rate is 80,000 per year. If net migration rate is 170,000 per year, the proportion of the population aged over 65 would reduce by 3.1 per cent. As of 2007 during the leadership of [[John Howard]], the net migration rate was 160,000 per year.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/11/24/1195753378227.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2 | location=Melbourne | work=The Age | title=Farewell, John. We will never forget you | date=25 November 2007 | access-date=27 November 2007 | archive-date=3 March 2016 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303203019/http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/11/24/1195753378227.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2 | url-status=live }}</ref>

According to the [[Department of the Treasury (Australia)|Commonwealth Treasury]], immigration can reduce the average age of the Australian population: "The level of net overseas migration is important: net inflows of migrants to Australia reduce the rate of population ageing because migrants are younger on average than the resident population. Currently, around 85 per cent of migrants are aged under 40 when they migrate to Australia, compared to around 55 per cent for the resident population."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1239/HTML/docshell.asp?URL=03_Part_2.htm |title=Part 2: Long-term demographic and economic projections |publisher=Treasury.gov.au |access-date=14 July 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110602200750/http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1239/HTML/docshell.asp?URL=03_Part_2.htm |archive-date=2 June 2011 }}</ref> [[Ross Gittins]], an economics columnist at [[Fairfax Media]], has said that the Government's focus on skilled migration has in fact reduced the average age of migrants. "More than half are aged 15 to 34, compared with 28 per cent of our population. Only 2 per cent of permanent immigrants are 65 or older, compared with 13 per cent of our population."<ref name="autogenerated2">{{cite news | url=https://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/backscratching-at-a-national-level/2007/06/12/1181414298095.html | title=Back-scratching at a national level | date=13 June 2007 | work=The Sydney Morning Herald | access-date=20 February 2020 | archive-date=24 September 2015 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924202948/http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/backscratching-at-a-national-level/2007/06/12/1181414298095.html | url-status=live }}</ref> Because of these statistics, Gittens claims that immigration is slowing the ageing of the Australian population and that the "net benefit to the economy is a lot more clear-cut."

Robert Birrell, director of the Centre for Population and Urban Research at [[Monash University]], has argued: "It is true that a net migration intake averaging around 180,000 per year will mean that the proportion of persons aged 65 plus to the total population will be a few percentage points lower in 2050 than it would be with a low migration intake. But this ‘gain’ would be bought at the expense of having to accommodate a much larger population. These people too, will age, thus requiring an even larger migration intake in subsequent years to look after them."<ref name="The Risks of High Migration">Birrell, B. [http://www.cis.org.au/images/stories/policy-magazine/2010-autumn/26-1-10-bob-birrell.pdf The Risks of High Migration] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140810131505/http://www.cis.org.au/images/stories/policy-magazine/2010-autumn/26-1-10-bob-birrell.pdf |date=10 August 2014 }}, Policy, Vol. 26 No. 1, Autumn 2010</ref>

In July 2005 the [[Productivity Commission]] launched a commissioned study entitled ''Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth'',<ref name="PC index">{{cite web |url=http://www.pc.gov.au/study/migrationandpopulation/index.html |title= Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth - Productivity Commission Commissioned Study|website=www.pc.gov.au |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927003902/http://www.pc.gov.au/study/migrationandpopulation/index.html |archive-date=27 September 2007}}</ref> and released an initial position paper on 17 January 2006<ref name="pc3">Productivity Commission, [http://www.pc.gov.au/study/migrationandpopulation/positionpaper/migrationandpopulation.pdf Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth (Position Paper)], p. 73 {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060625205846/http://www.pc.gov.au/study/migrationandpopulation/positionpaper/migrationandpopulation.pdf |date=25 June 2006 }}</ref> which states that the increase of income per capita provided by higher migration (50 percent more than the base model) by the 2024–2025 financial year would be $335 (0.6%), an amount described as "very small." The paper also found that Australians would on average work 1.3 percent longer hours, about twice the proportional increase in income.<ref name="pc2">Productivity Commission, [https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/migration-population/report Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth Key Points] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060819041814/http://www.pc.gov.au/study/migrationandpopulation/positionpaper/keypoints.html |date=19 August 2006 }}</ref>

Using [[regression analysis]], Addison and Worswick found in a 2002 study that "there is no evidence that immigration has negatively impacted on the wages of young or low-skilled natives." Furthermore, Addison's study found that immigration did not increase unemployment among native workers. Rather, immigration decreased unemployment.<ref name="er">Addison, T. and Worswick, C. (2002). The impact of immigration on the earnings of natives: Evidence from Australian micro data. [https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ecorec/v78y2002i240p68-78.html] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150929002200/https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ecorec/v78y2002i240p68-78.html|date=29 September 2015}}, Vol. 78, pp. 68–78.</ref> However, in 2005 the [[Productivity Commission]] concluded that higher immigration levels would result in lower [[wage growth]] for existing Australian residents.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/9438/migrationandpopulation.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121029072643/http://pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/9438/migrationandpopulation.pdf|url-status=dead|title=Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth|archive-date=29 October 2012}}</ref> On the impact of immigration on unemployment levels, the Commission said: "The conclusion that immigration has not caused unemployment at an aggregate level does not imply that it cannot lead to higher unemployment for specific groups. Immigration could worsen the labour market outcomes of people who work in sectors of the economy that have high concentrations of immigrant workers."

Gittins claims there is considerable [[opposition to immigration]] in Australia by "battlers" because of the belief that immigrants will steal jobs. Gittins claims though that "it's true that immigrants add to the supply of labour. But it's equally true that, by consuming and bringing families who consume, they also add to the demand for labour – usually by more."<ref name=autogenerated2 /> Overall, Gittins has written that the "economic case for rapid population growth though immigration is surprisingly weak," noting the diseconomies of scale, infrastructure costs and negative environmental impacts associated with continued immigration-driven population growth.<ref>Gittins, R. [https://www.smh.com.au/business/beware-gurus-selling-high-migration-20101219-19201.html Beware gurus selling high migration] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140618142915/http://www.smh.com.au/business/beware-gurus-selling-high-migration-20101219-19201.html |date=18 June 2014 }}, The Sydney Morning Herald, 20 December 2010</ref>

Robert Birrell has asserted that high immigration levels are being used by the Federal Government to stimulate aggregate economic growth, but that per capita growth is more important to Australians.<ref name="The Risks of High Migration" /> Birrell concluded that high migration does not benefit existing residents, because it dilutes the benefit that can accrue from the export of non-renewable resources which form a large part of the Australian economy. As well, Birrell argues that a slowdown in labour force growth would require employers to pay greater attention to training, wages and conditions of workers.<ref name="The Risks of High Migration" />