3.1
Multiculturalism has been and continues to be a bedrock of Australia's society and culture. Contemporary Australia is ethnically, linguistically, and culturally diverse—and we are stronger for it. Indeed, even before we became Australia, this land was home to a rich tapestry of First Nations cultures and languages that continue to define and shape who we are as a nation today.
3.2
In 2021, this committee conducted an inquiry into nationhood, national identity, and democracy. The final report described how almost half of Australians (49 per cent) were either born overseas or had at least one parent who was. One submitter to that inquiry told the committee that one in seven people on the streets of Australia's largest cities had arrived in the country within the past two decades. A study cited in the final report found 85 per cent of Australians consistently support multiculturalism, making Australians among the world's most supportive of immigration and multiculturalism. Migration and multiculturalism are thus at the heart of who we are as a nation and where we are headed.
3.3
This chapter builds on these themes, outlining how immigration and multiculturalism contribute to and strengthen our economy (including Australia's recovery in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic), add to our culture and society, and help fulfill our international human rights and humanitarian obligations. This chapter then provides the committee's view on the importance of immigration, multiculturalism, and family reunion.
Contributing to Australia's growth, stability, and recovery
3.4
Migration has historically been a critical part of Australia's social and financial development as a nation. Indeed, submitters to the inquiry argued that the current and ongoing value of immigration cannot be reduced to an economic analysis or a figure in the budget. For example, Fragomen argued migrants 'should not be measured first and foremost by their ability to produce any net economic gain but rather by a broader social and cultural context'. Indeed, the following section explores the social and cultural value of immigration and multiculturalism. Evidence before the committee nevertheless affirms that immigration does make a significant contribution to Australia's economic growth, stability, and post-pandemic recovery that must be recognised. As discussed below, immigration provides our businesses with the skills they need and lack, it adds to our economic productivity, it stimulates demand for goods and services, and it increases our economic output. Moreover, foreign workers fill critical labour shortages in some sectors in which few Australians wish to participate.
3.5
A recent Grattan Institute report found young and skilled migrants make a particularly significant contribution to the economy. The costs of the education of young migrants are not borne by Australia, yet these individuals become taxpayers, and contribute to the Commonwealth budget and our economic output. The Grattan Institute's report estimated that over their lifetime, permanent skilled primary migrants deliver nearly $320,000 in tax and over $4 million to Gross Domestic Product (an annual measure of national economic output).
3.6
An Oxford Economics study found skilled foreign workers increase local wages and induce local workers to specialise in communication-intensive jobs. Local and migrant workers were thus found to not compete with one another directly, instead performing complementary tasks. Similar observations were made by Dr Philip Lowe, Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) in a mid-2021 speech to the Economic Society of Australia (Queensland). In his remarks, Governor Lowe broadly described the effects of immigration as adding to both the supply and demand of labour: 'when immigrants work they supply labour and their consumption of goods and services adds to the demand for labour'.
3.7
The positive economic impacts of immigration were reflected in evidence provided to this committee. For example, the Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC) submitted that immigration creates more jobs and increases productivity. HRLC cited a 2019 study by Deloitte that showed refugee and humanitarian visa recipients and their families, have 'notable positive impacts on the broader economy'. The Deloitte study found an increase in Australia's humanitarian intake of 44,000 places would boost the economy by nearly $38 billion over the next 50 years and sustain a further 35,000 jobs each year due to increased demand for goods and services.
3.8
The Multicultural Youth Advocacy Network (MYAN) cited that same study to highlight the value of family reunion, submitting:
Family reunion presents a valuable opportunity to meet growing Australian labour force needs in key expanding sectors, like health and aged care. The research indicates that these positive economic impacts increase over time.
3.9
MYAN further urged the committee not to view family reunion as an economic cost, arguing that parents and key family members offer a range of positive social, economic, and cultural contributions.
3.10
The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) submitted, 'there is also a strong economic benefit that flows from refugees accessing family reunion opportunities in Australia'.
3.11
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry rejected assertions from those critical of immigration that skilled migration was taking Australian jobs, pointing to the high skill levels and qualifications of those sponsored by employers that demonstrated they were filling a gap in domestic labour supply.
3.12
The Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia (FECCA) told the committee that by reuniting families through family and partner visas, primary visa holders are more likely to keep money in the Australian economy rather than sending it to relatives abroad.
3.13
These findings complement the evidence provided to this committee's 2021 inquiry into nationhood, in which it was found that Australia's multiculturalism is an asset that provides us with a geopolitical advantage and makes us more economically competitive.
COVID-19 recovery and our reliance on immigration
3.14
The closure of Australia's borders due to the COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare our economic reliance on immigration. RBA Governor Lowe described the global pandemic as leading to 'the biggest peacetime economic contraction in our lifetimes'. Governor Lowe outlined how employers could no longer tap into global labour markets due to Australia's border closures, leading to growing wage pressures in parts of the economy.
3.15
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry described the decline in skilled migration resulting from border closures as 'doing damage to our economy', leading to labour and skills shortages that need to be addressed as part of the post-COVID-19 recovery.
3.16
The Migration Institute of Australia (MIA) contended that the pandemic and the closure of Australia's borders has 'exposed Australia's reliance on migrants to support the labour market and grow the economy'. The MIA submitted that the reduction in overseas migration will lead to a 'cumulative negative impact on the Australian economy' due to a reduced number of skilled workers available in some sectors, as well as the impact on consumption and demand for services and products. MIA consequently argued, 'the move towards post pandemic economic recovery is inexorably interrelated to immigration'.
3.17
MIA further submitted:
The government settings for the migration program in general, and in the short term, needs to address this deficit. However, there is a danger that the Government will not recognise the contribution made to the Australian economy by skilled and family migrants and concentrate on skilled and business migration instead, although…family stream migrants provide tangible and intangible benefits to the economy that are not as easily measured and as such should not be ignored.
3.18
COVID-19 has changed the pattern of migration to Australia—at least over the short-term. Family visas have typically accounted for under a third of all permanent visas issued each year since 2010. However, the pandemic-induced fall in skilled migration has driven a policy change in which the number of family visas issued in 2020-2021 increased to just under half (49.3 per cent) of all permanent visas issued that year—the highest number in a decade. This policy change has reportedly eased some of the pressure resulting from a backlog of almost 100,000 people waiting for a partner visa.
3.19
The Department of Home Affairs (the department) acknowledged that 'immigration will play a critical role in economic recovery from the pandemic'. Accordingly, the department submitted:
The Migration Program has been designed to provide flexibility to respond to evolving border measures and economic circumstances. Carefully targeting the Migration Program to address current and longer-term economic needs, with a focus on visa categories that best address Australia's labour market needs and growth objectives, will help to address the impacts of the pandemic and support broader COVID-19 response efforts as Australia moves into the next phase of economic recovery and prepares for international travel restrictions to ease.
Strengthening Australia's culture and social fabric
3.20
A 2019 study by Deloitte on the impacts of an increased humanitarian intake found diversity among migrants promotes social wellbeing and satisfaction. The report concluded that multiculturalism promotes social resilience, adaptability, and vibrancy.
3.21
The Deloitte study further argued:
Multicultural and diverse societies—such as Australia—have a unique set of circumstances that allow tolerance and a greater understanding of religions, ethnicities and languages to flourish. Therefore increasing diversity can increase tolerance of all ethnic groups within and outside of Australia. In an increasingly globalised society, these cultural understandings are important to facilitating cross-country relationships and trade.
3.22
MYAN highlighted the contribution immigration has made to Australia, submitting:
Immigration has been a defining feature of Australia for decades, and every year migrants continue to positively contribute to the social, cultural, and economic fabric of Australia.
3.23
The submission from MYAN also emphasised the value of young migrants:
Young people have enormous strengths and capabilities, including broad international and cross-cultural knowledge, multilingual skills, adaptability, high educational aspirations, a desire to enjoy and uphold the rights and responsibilities of Australia's democratic processes, and a strong sense of family and community. They also play an important role in supporting the successful settlement of their family.
3.24
Many submissions emphasised the specific value and importance of the family reunion program. For example, Fragomen argued that the family reunion policy recognises vital kinship ties and mutual dependence within families, whilst also supporting broader social cohesion and upholding Australia's global obligations.
3.25
MYAN submitted that family reunion accelerates integration and contributes to social cohesion, thereby supporting the 'positive contributions that all migrants make to the broader Australian community'.
3.26
The Australian Red Cross (ARC) contended that the 'powerful and positive contribution family makes to resettlement outcomes cannot be underestimated'. ARC told the committee that family reunion can enhance settlement outcomes and may reduce the time and support refugees need after arrival.
3.27
ARC further submitted:
The presence of family can act as a buffer against social stress and adjustment difficulties. Red Cross's in-depth interviews with family members who were experiencing separation revealed a range of motivations for being reunited with family from seeking peace and happiness, to enabling security and support and facilitating settlement and establishing their new life in Australia.
3.28
The Refugee Council of Australia emphasised that for refugee communities:
Family reunion is not only about being reunited with loved ones, but it is often a vital lifeline for people fleeing persecution and war zones, or stranded in countries of asylum where they have no rights and no future.
3.29
AHRC also pointed to the value of facilitating family and partner reunions, submitting:
There are many benefits to Australia having a strong family reunion program. Resettlement outcomes are vastly improved for people who have the support of their family, whereas family separation has devastating impacts on a person's mental health, economic situation and social integration.
3.30
The HRLC similarly contended:
Allowing families to be together contributes to diversity and multiculturalism in Australia, which improves our society. Entire communities benefit when people are able to build their lives together with loved ones.
3.31
MIA emphasised that individuals are increasingly discerning about where they seek to migrate, taking into consideration the ease and likelihood of having their partner and family join them. Long visa processing wait times in Australia could provide 'a strong disincentive for choosing Australia'.
3.32
The Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia (FECCA) submitted that many migrants arriving though family migration contribute in other ways, such as volunteering at cultural, religious, or community events, as well as helping to maintain Australia's multicultural and linguistic diversity.
3.33
FECCA submitted that family reunion is essential in helping young people to rebuild their lives in Australia by providing critical emotional support and helping refugees and migrants adapt and connect with others. FECCA pointed to evidence that family reunion fosters positive health outcomes, contributes to social cohesion, and promotes the wellbeing of the whole community, concluding, the benefits of family reunion 'cannot be underestimated'.
3.34
MYAN submitted that family reunion is critical to meeting the long-term needs of refugees and promotes a positive settlement process. The Network claimed parents and key family members help 'strengthen the capacity of individuals to function in their new countries, facilitating their integration process and promoting social and economic self-sufficiency'. MYAN provided the committee with a list of some of the specific ways in which they do so, including:
promoting the health and wellbeing of family members;
providing free childcare that can allow households to earn two incomes;
support with navigating new cultural and administrative systems;
providing emotional support and advice;
boosting educational outcomes; and
contributing to national productivity.
3.35
The Vietnamese Australian Lawyers' Association similarly claimed family reunification provides valuable support and stability for family members in Australia.
3.36
Catholic Religious Australia emphasised the broader contribution of older individuals and family, submitting:
Even retired grandparents, through assisting with care of grandchildren, allow parents to work more often and reduce childcare costs for Australian families. Without familial support in rearing children, many Australian families may require government subsidies to afford the rising costs associated with childcare.
3.37
Fragomen argued that the indirect benefits of family reunion are often understated, submitting that family migration provides vital benefits, including childcare and other free labour costs for primary visa holders. Moreover, Fragomen pointed to a 2021 study that found a 'significant number' of family visa holders also have tertiary qualifications.
3.38
Fragomen told the committee that promoting family migration encourages primary visa holders to see Australia as a home and not just a place to earn a wage, arguing this was particularly crucial for Australia's regional areas:
This is critical for regional migration programs, whereby family migration increases the prospects of successful and permanent settlement in regional areas by forming enduring community and familial roots where the skilled worker would otherwise be migrating with little or no established support networks in their place of settlement.
3.39
Fragomen further submitted that delayed or unattainable family reunions may drive primary visa holders to return to their place of origin, thereby costing Australia future tax revenue and the consumer spending they would have incurred had they and their families settled long-term.
3.40
Several submitters emphasised that the benefits of family reunion extend beyond the immediate family, arguing it also brings broader economic and community benefits. For example, MYAN submitted that reunification benefits the broader community by 'enhancing the prospects of integration and lowering social costs in the long term'.
3.41
Evidence to the committee also highlighted the potential negative impact of family separation on individuals. MYAN argued that policies which deny or delay reunification may have a negative impact on mental and physical health, and may lead to negative economic and social consequences that undermine the ability of young people, in particular, to settle successfully.
3.42
Research conducted by the ARC found that family separation may have a 'significant' impact on psychological well-being, 'contributing to fear-based worries, anxiety about the future and often interfering with general functioning, affecting the ability to sleep, study, concentrate or work'. The research further indicated that distress in separated families 'is often a reflection of the disruption of primary relationships at a time when family support and unity are most needed as people grapple with their identity when settling into their new communities in Australia'.
3.43
FECCA told the committee that temporary visa holders are particularly vulnerable to family and domestic violence due to their visa status and are frequently ineligible for critical support services when subjected to violence or threats. FECCA stated:
The lack of family reunion creates many problems for people to obtain an education, find and hold stable employment, and develop new social networks. This has a significant long-term impact on the Australia [sic] economy, preventing people from rebuilding their lives and contributing to Australia. In contrast, if people can bring their family to Australia more easily, they are able to move on with their lives, have social and cultural connections and have additional family members to provide care and support.
3.44
Reflecting on partner and prospective marriage visa processing times (24‒27 months and 18‒29 months, respectively), Fragomen advised that delays 'can have a negative impact on family relationships and cause mental health issues as a result of the long separation periods and the delay in couples being able to make plans for their future together'.
3.45
Other submitters reflected on government policies that may undermine family reunion and compromise positive settlement outcomes. For example, AHRC submitted that family reunification is 'effectively unattainable' for some refugees and asylum seekers. The current system is thereby promoting 'arbitrary interference' with their right to family life, warned the Commission.
3.46
The Human Rights Law Centre raised concerns with current immigration policies, submitting:
The Australian Government's willingness to leave families separated for years on end is at odds with the values shared by many people and communities across Australia. As we look to recommence migration following the unprecedented border restrictions associated with COVID-19, the Australian Government has an opportunity to reimagine the future of Australia's migration policy—to prioritise reuniting loved ones who are separated and to keep families at the heart of our country's growth.
3.47
The Human Rights Law Centre further told the committee, the 'disregard for family unity is widespread' in current family migration policies.
3.48
The National Ethnic Disability Alliance and Multicultural Disability Advocacy Association observed that, whilst Australia was built on multiculturalism, 'our migration policies and practices do not reflect these values of inclusion'.
3.49
The Castan Centre for Human Rights Law pointed to the proportion of skilled migration places in the migration program (historically set at two-thirds of the overall program), suggesting this policy 'has eroded the priority given to family migration'. The Castan Centre stated:
[These policies] have resulted in a focus that potentially undermines the ability of Australians to be joined by family members, and especially extended family members. While this is often justified in economic terms (with reference to the alleged economic benefits of skilled migrants), it underplays the importance of family for both the individuals impacted and the Australian population on the whole.
3.50
Some submissions warned of changes to the family visa program that had undermined family reunification. For example, the Immigration Advice and Rights Centre (IARC) submitted that it had become harder over recent years for family members of Australian citizens and permanent residents to migrate to Australia, with processing times having 'blown out'. IARC told the committee:
In our view, family migration should not be about balancing economic and/or social policy. The appropriate approach must be about recognising and giving full effect to the understanding that family is the fundamental unit of society and should be respected and protected by the State.
3.51
Catholic Religious Australia raised concerns with the prioritisation within current the visa program on youth, pointing to less than 6 per cent of Australia's family intake being allocated to parent visas in 2020‒2021. Catholic Religious Australia submitted that working-age immigration is prioritised as a matter of policy, devaluing the economic and social contribution of older individuals and families:
Through a stronger government commitment to and support of the reunion of families, Australians, and our society, can only be better off, socially, psychologically, emotionally and financially.
Fulfilling our international obligations
3.52
Various submitters gave evidence that family reunion helps fulfil Australia's international obligations, particularly its human rights obligations. For example, the department told the committee of several 'core international human rights treaties' to which Australia is signatory including:
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR);
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination;
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women;
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment;
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC); and
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
3.53
The department submitted that when 'developing policies and drafting legislation related to the Family Program, the Department carefully considers compliance with Australia's international human rights obligations'.
3.54
FECCA highlighted the central role of family reunion within Australia's international obligations:
Family reunion also relates to the internationally recognised human rights of people to live with their family members. Access to appropriate, fair, and transparent family reunion processes is strongly related to people's experiences of safety, belonging, and a secure future.
3.55
AHRC explained that 'international human rights law recognises that the family is a fundamental unit of society and deserves respect and protection'. The Commission submitted that Australia is compelled to protect the family, including the following obligations:
to not arbitrarily or unlawfully interfere with the family;
to give the family the widest possible protection and assistance; and
to ensure that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration in all actions concerning children, including with respect to immigration law.
3.56
AHRC observed that these obligations apply to all people, regardless of status, including refugees and people seeking asylum. The Commission told the committee that restrictions on access to family reunion are inconsistent with Australia's obligations under international law.
3.57
Legal Aid NSW submitted that the Australian government is 'obliged to implement provisions of conventions which it has ratified', particularly those most relevant to family reunions. Legal Aid NSW pointed specifically to the ICCPR (which enshrines a right to family) and the CRC (which enshrines the right of each child to the support of their parents, including the right to be reunified). Legal Aid NSW also drew the committee's attention to the 16 to 21 month wait time for a Child visa, as of February 2021.
3.58
Legal Aid NSW submitted that the integrity of family units is central to both migration decisions as well as to family law, in which the Family Law Act 1975 mandates courts exercising family law jurisdiction consider that 'the best interests of children are generally met by ensuring that they have the benefit of both parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives'.
3.59
The Castan Centre for Human Rights Law emphasised that Australia had accepted its human rights obligations, as laid out above, 'including family formation and reunification migration'. The Castan Centre nevertheless submitted that areas of law and practice related to migration need to be amended if Australia is to fully live up to its obligations under international human rights law (IHRL):
The core of family life under IHRL is indicated by people's ability to live together and maintain family life with those linked to them by a close family bond. Australia's current family migration policy settings raise human rights concerns because they significantly restrict individuals' ability be joined by family members, and where family reunification is possible, impose a process that is demanding, expensive and lengthy.
3.60
Several submissions questioned whether current government policies relating to family reunion visas meet Australia's international human rights obligations. For example, Labor for Refugees NSW raised concerns about the extent to which current policies reflect Australia's international obligations:
Current government policy settings (reflected in related processes) respect neither the letter nor the spirit of these international undertakings and obligations. Indeed, Australia has been frequently criticised by UN bodies and human rights organisations for many aspects of its treatment of refugees and people seeking asylum.
3.61
MIA described the Australian government's commitment to its international obligations as 'somewhat specious', particularly with regard to the inability for many protection visa holders to have their families join them in Australia. The Migration Institute consequently submitted:
Inconsistencies exist between the legislation and international obligations in the broader context of the migration program and internally within the migration program, when considering the partner, parent and other family case load.
3.62
Refugee Voices expressed concern that government policies in relation to family reunion amount to 'a purely punitive measure' that results in 'long term traumatic consequences' for those effected.
3.63
Catholic Religious Australia argued that Australia was failing in these human rights obligations with respect to people arriving by boat:
Any person who arrives by boat seeking asylum in Australia, without a visa, is not permitted to propose any of their family members for resettlement in Australia; this includes minors. Restricting a child asylum seeker's access to their family contravenes international law, especially the Declaration on the Rights of the Child, to which Australia has signed and ratified.