Our country’s government has put on a cruel face to look at its migrant citizens, the same citizens who have literally and metaphorically helped build Australia.

Members of culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities who wish to take care of their elderly parents by bringing them to Australia will have to overcome some rather substantial hurdles.

The Productivity Commission’s report, which was filed in April and was released on Monday without an official comment, blames the country’s current policy as having presented many shortcomings in terms of constructing a solid population plan.

Focusing on the overall expense, the report pushes towards abolishing permanent visas or significantly increasing prices as the intake of migrants’ parents will cost taxpayers up to $3.2 billion under current laws. The commission suggests that only in extreme circumstances should permanent residency for parents be provided as a token of compassion, recommending a new temporary parent visa holding the children or the parents themselves responsible for covering health and welfare costs.

While the report highlights that ­migration has been beneficial to the country’s economy and the financial budget acknowledging it is widely accepted by society, the commission insists there are too many omissions and loopholes allowing people with limited skills and inadequate knowledge of the English language to enter Australia and gain permanent ­residency.

Treasurer Scott Morrison, who announced the inquiry’s findings, said that “the biggest gains would come from overhauling the skilled ­migration intake. This would involve ‘raising the bar’ by shifting to a universal points test while tightening entry requirements relating to age, skills and English-language proficiency”.

NEGATIVE INTAKE
According to the report, the estimated age a migrant can make the greatest contribution to the economy is approximately 25, “the most productive years”.

Skilled visa holders can also have a valuable contribution to the country’s economy, given the time of arrival does not go beyond the 40 years of age barrier. Contrary to the two previous categories, parents of migrants deliver anything but a boost to the budget, burdening the economy at an “unbearably high cost for the average taxpayer”.

Migrants’ parents are currently able to come to Australia under two different regulations. The first scheme has a waiting period of more than 30 years but involves only a fee of $7000 for the visa, which, compared to the second scheme, is relatively low. Parents falling under the second category are required to pay up to $47,000 for a visa which will contribute to the cost an elder person’s stay in Australia will have on the budget.

If you find this cost too high, think again. In the report the aforementioned fee “does not come close to covering the real cost to the taxpayer of a parent visa”, which is ­estimated at between $335,000 and $410,000 after health, welfare and aged-care costs are added to the equation.

“Given that there is a new inflow each year, the accumulated taxpayer liabilities become very large over time. This is a high cost for a relatively small group,” the report explains.

INHUMANE POLITICS
Voula Mesimeri, Pronoia’s general manager for 27 years and with lifelong experience on migration issues and humanitarian politics, dubs most of the report’s suggestions as “inhumane”. At the moment, the annual permanent migration intake is set by the Department of Immigration after a consultation, looking at skill shortages and the needs for family reunion. Specifically, the Productivity Commission stresses that “environmental considerations and Australia’s absorptive capacity are conspicuously absent, as is the investment infrastructure required to provide services to the growing population. There should be a formal population policy setting out the government’s long-term goals for population growth that would ­include the impact of both permanent and temporary migration on social cohesion, the environment and the economy”.

The above is to be reviewed every five years along with the Inter-Generational ­Report, however, Mrs Mesimeri remains adamant.

“Family reunification is an integral part of the humanitarian nature of immigration,” she says. “We must not forget that. There is nothing humanitarian, though, in the resolutions of the Productivity Committee. Nobody has the right to prevent the reunion of family members, especially if they have been distanced for reasons against their will.”

The amount of money families have to pay currently to bring a parent to Australia − the same fee that the members of the committee find ‘insufficient’ − already divides the applicants into those who have the means and those who haven’t got them, Mrs Mesimeri emphasises.

“This is a shameless discrimination against lower class citizens, completely unacceptable and even contradicting, I’d dare say, the very essence of this country, which was built on the value of ‘fairness’ among others. Such a policy, which opens the door only to the rich to bring their parents here, is unjust and despicable. The government should take that into consideration. Inquiry conclusions and suggestions are not to be applied like that, without further study.”

UNGRATEFUL
Can the country’s government be this ungrateful, I wonder, towards those who set the foundations and then built this impressive structure of a nation Australia is considered to be? When Australia was in need of a workforce, it was those migrants who left their families behind to come here. Mass migration has separated many families, while most first generation immigrants arrived at a very young age. The vast majority of this generation lost their parents without ever being able to say “goodbye”. Melodramatic as it may sound, it is true. Meanwhile, a great number of migrants that arrived in the recent decades have parents who are still alive and would not wish to meet the same fate as first generation migrants.

COLD CALCULATIONS
In its first calculation the commission estimates the cost of receiving close to 8,700 parents under both schemes is between $2.6 billion and $3.2 billion over a lifetime (after allowing for inflation). The report says the size of the annual intake has a big impact on population growth − a negative impact growing bigger every year − taking a toll on everyone even though it is related only to a small portion of the population.

Returning to the current cost of family reunification, although it is claimed grandparents contribute to child care, the commission says this is the case for only a minority of parent visas and, in any event, reduces the cost for the family rather than the taxpayer.

The report stresses that migrants have increased their share of the population from 23 per cent to 28 per cent in the past 15 years, while a further 21 per cent has at least one foreign-born parent. The overall expense to the detriment of the average taxpayer is great. Furthermore, it is suggested that if migration dropped back to the long-term ­average of 0.6 per cent a year, the population would be 40 million by 2060 instead of doubling to 50 million which is expected under the applying regulations.

Voula Mesimeri voices the concerns not only of the Greek Australian community but of the many citizens who come from migrant backgrounds. It is imperative, she says, to have a humanitarian approach when dealing with family reunification cases.

“Government policies should be humane not just in name but in practice as well. This is the only way to give back a fraction of what migrants have contributed to this nation; to prove with actions and not just pre-election slogans that ‘Australia is a migrant nation’.”