Proof that high overseas immigration DOESN'T make your city richer
A 2023 study by the Centre for Population partnered with the OECD found that Australian-born workers benefitted from boosted labour productivity, wages and employment rates in regions that had high migration.
According to the report, on average a region with 10 per cent larger migrant share had a 1.3 per cent larger regional wage difference, while a 1 per cent rise in annual migrant inflow, lead to a 0.53 per cent increase in employment for all genders and ages.
Sydney and Melbourne last year accommodated 61 per cent of the 340,800 new migrants who relocated to Australia.
But instead of boosting prosperity in Australia's two biggest cities, rapid population growth from those who have relocated from overseas appears to only be causing a big exodus to other states - limiting economic activity.
Victoria last year housed 100,503 new overseas migrants or 29.4 per cent of the new permanent and long-term arrivals into Australia.
Australia's most populous state, covering Melbourne, is home to 26 per cent of the nation's 27.4million people but only comprises 22 per cent of the national gross domestic product.
Commonwealth Bank associate economist Lucinda Jerogin noted Victoria's economic growth pace has lagged as 3,203 residents left for another part of Australia last year.
She said in Victoria, the 'net number of interstate migration' or the amount of people moving from within Australia to the state, 'has been around zero for the last few quarters'.
'This is well below the pre-Covid trend where Victoria was a popular destination for internal migrants.'
'Victoria's economy is also weak. The unemployment rate is the highest of any state or territory,' she said.
Victoria's unemployment rate of 4.4 per cent is well above the national average of 4.1 per cent.
The state's continuing exodus to other states and a weak economy also kept a lid on house prices with values falling by one per cent in the year to May.
They continued soaring in Brisbane and Perth - two cities receiving a big influx of interstate migration.
NSW is home to 31 per cent of Australia's population but makes up 30 per cent of national GDP. Last year it received 106,730 foreign migrants, and 28,113 people left for another part of Australia.
'Growth in the country's largest state economy is sluggish,' Ms Jerogin said.
By contrast, WA has Australia's strongest population growth pace of 2.4 per cent, based on attracting 12,612 new interstate migrants last year on top of the 45,124 overseas migrants moving in.
The mining-rich state makes up 11 per cent of Australia's population but makes up 17 per cent of the national economy, thanks to lucrative revenue streams from exporting iron ore to China.
WA is also resilient to Donald Trump's tariffs, with exports of gold to the United States soaring by 31.6 per cent during the first three months of 2025.
'WA exports have fallen off its peak, however, US destined exports have skyrocketed,' Ms Jerogin said.
Queensland houses 20.5 per cent of Australia's population and makes up 20 per cent of the national economy.
But some provincial states are contributing less to the economy.
SA makes up 7 per cent of Australia's population but only 5 per cent of GDP.
It also saw 1,582 residents leave for another part of Australia.
'The smaller states and territories are all also seeing negative interstate migration, a return to more normal trends that were present pre-Covid,' Ms Jerogin said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
26 minutes ago
- Reuters
Australian banking regulator warns geopolitical tensions could lead to more cyber attacks
SYDNEY, Aug 21 (Reuters) - Australia's prudential regulator has cautioned that the country's banking system is facing increasing risk of cyberattacks as a result of escalating geopolitical tensions. Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) chair John Lonsdale said the regulator would increase its work with the country's banks in the year ahead to combat the potential for more cyberattacks. APRA, in an annual report, did not identify countries it believed could be behind the cyberattacks. "Operational systems in financial institutions are increasingly vulnerable to technology outages and malicious cyber-attacks," Lonsdale said in the report. "The risk environment for cyberattacks could worsen further in the context of escalating geopolitical tensions." APRA said the growing use of artificial intelligence was also an emerging risk the banking sector faced. A report released by National Australia Bank last year found more than two-thirds of Australians had been affected by a cyberattack or data breach. APRA established its first geopolitical risk team in 2024 to identify potential threats to the country's banking system.
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
US judge rejects Trump administration challenge to Illinois E-Verify law
Aug 20 (Reuters) - A federal judge in Chicago has dismissed a bid by the administration of Republican President Donald Trump to bar Illinois from restricting employers' use of a federal program that electronically verifies eligibility to work in the United States. U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman on Tuesday said, opens new tab an Illinois law imposing a series of requirements on employers who use E-Verify falls within the state's power to regulate employment and does not interfere with the federal government's enforcement of immigration laws. Trump, a Republican, has made immigration enforcement a centerpiece of his second term. His administration has stepped up arrests of immigrants, cracked down on unlawful border crossings and stripped legal status from hundreds of thousands of migrants. Coleman denied the administration's motion for a preliminary injunction blocking the law, which took effect in January, and granted a motion by Illinois to dismiss the case. "The federal government's broad interpretation of its power to regulate matters of immigration would swallow the historic powers of the states over employment-related issues," wrote Coleman, an appointee of President Barack Obama, a Democrat. The U.S. Department of Justice and the Illinois Attorney General's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment. E-Verify was established in 1996 to help companies avoid hiring people who are in the United States illegally and lack authorization to work. The program compares work eligibility forms filled out by workers, known as I-9s, with records maintained by the federal government. E-Verify is voluntary on the federal level, but 10 states require all or most employers to use it and about a dozen others mandate it for government contractors. California and Illinois are the only states that restrict the use of E-Verify. The Illinois law, called the Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act, bans employers from using the program to check the immigration status of existing employees and requires them to post notices about E-Verify in the workplace. It also requires employers to notify workers when federal authorities are conducting an audit of their immigration status and allow them to address any discrepancies in their paperwork. The Trump administration in its lawsuit claimed that because the law discourages employers from using E-Verify, it disrupts federal immigration enforcement and is preempted by federal law. Coleman on Tuesday said that argument was "broad to the point of absurdity." If the administration were correct, it would mean that states also could not mandate the use of E-Verify and that various other state employment laws that have been upheld by courts would be invalid, she said. The case is United States v. Illinois, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, No. 1:25-cv-04811. For the United States: Elianis Perez of the U.S. Department of Justice For Illinois: Darren Kinkead of the Illinois Attorney General's Office Read more: Trump's immigration enforcement record so far, by the numbers
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Major change for millions of Aussie workers next week
More than 5.1million Aussies who work for a small business will soon have the right to ignore calls and texts from their bosses after hours. The second stage of 'right to disconnect' laws comes into effect next Monday, exactly one year after the Albanese government enforced the rule for companies with more than 15 employees. The controversial laws give employees the right to refuse to monitor, read, or reply to contact outside their working hours, unless doing so is unreasonable. This includes contact from an employer, colleagues and third parties such as clients and suppliers. But the laws don't make it unlawful for an employer to contact an employee outside working hours. 'Instead, they give employees a right to refuse to monitor, read or respond to the contact, unless doing so is unreasonable,' the Fair Work Ombudsman website states. Whether or not a refusal is unreasonable will depend on the circumstances. Factors could include the nature of the worker's role and level of responsibility, their personal circumstances and extra pay, or compensation received for working additional hours or being available after hours. Ahead of the major change, the NSW Small Business Commissioner has urged employers and employees from the outset to have a conversation about what out-of-hours contact might mean. 'They should set expectations about contact and responding to contact when either party is not working,' the website states. However, many questions remain, including what is considered unreasonable. There isn't any advice in the legislation, which encourages businesses to consider whether employees are being paid for this time after-hours or if the request is urgent. Those who don't comply with the laws have been threatened with hefty fines of up to $18,780 for individuals and $93,900 for companies per breach. However, no cases involving large companies have yet made it to court in the first year of legislation. The laws have reignited online debate among employees and small business operators. 'I'm a manager and constantly get calls and texts after hours, weekends and holidays. Staff wanting to swap shifts, calling in sick, and security call-outs,' one woman posted online. 'Wow, I'm gonna be getting paid 24/7. Shouldn't this work both ways? Staff should respect their bosses' time off also.' A worker added: 'Your boss is only your boss during work hours, after work hours he's just another person & I decide if I answer their calls or not.' Workers on call 24-7 were concerned about the potential impact the laws could have on their role. 'I work a job doing supermarket refrigeration service, does this mean I can ignore emergency breakdowns, even though I'm on call 24/7?' one wrote. 'Or can I ignore texts telling me which job I will be at next morning? Or what about important information about jobs I need to pass onto my boss? Can I just not do that because it's out of hours?' However, others had no problems with being contacted after hours by their bosses. 'I work for a small company and sometimes it just happens. If you have a respectful relationship with your management it shouldn't be an issue from time to time,' one woman commented.
