text: Last year's Intergenerational Report projected that the population of Australia will likely expand to around 39.7 million by 2055, while inferring that:
  Recently the Productivity Commission released the leviathan that is its draft report concerning Migrant Intake Into Australia, a 570 page monster of a document, but let us cut straight into it and take a look in three short parts.
  Part 1 – The demographic dividend
  Under the "immigration" scenario, by the year 2060 there are projected to be 44 persons aged 65 and over for every 100 persons aged 15-64, whereas without immigration the ratio would be disastrously less favourable at 59 persons aged 65 or over for every 100 persons aged 15-64.
  Part 2 – Visa and immigration processes
  A significant proportion of those who are initially granted temporary visas to visit Australia – including myself, in fact – in time go on to become permanent residents and citizens of Australia.
  As regularly documented on this blog each quarter, the rate of natural increase in Australia's population has declined since 2012, with the rate of net overseas migration set to be the key driver of population growth over the decades ahead.
  The structure of the visa system has changed over time too.
  When I became an Australian resident more than a decade ago, I took the path that was taken by almost all new permanent residents at that time – points tested skilled migration, in my case as a Chartered Accountant (60 points…woop).
  Since that time the split of permanent visas has shifted markedly towards employer sponsored grants.
  This has the potential advantage of allowing the visa system to be more flexible and responsive to skill requirements, with business sponsored visas generally delivering superior medium term employment outcomes than state sponsored grants.
  That said it would be in nobody's interests to promote a system which favoured the issuance of employer sponsored visas ahead of employing skills available domestically, particularly with youth unemployment tracking at double-digit levels (despite a promising recent improvement).
  Part 3 – Who, where, and what?
  Immigrants into Australia are typically aged between 20 and 45, with 25-34 year olds by far the most prominent cohort, particularly for overseas born citizens and permanent migrants.
  The report found that English language skills are of key importance for migrants.
  And to do what occupations do migrants come?
  Mainly services based occupations – such as professional, scientific & technical services, financial services, healthcare and social assistance, and a great many others – as well as retail and wholesale trade positions, manufacturing, and education roles.
  Without immigration, population growth would continue to be spread across regions roughly as is the case today, and would maintain approximately the current regional distribution.
  The real eye-opener when it comes to immigration projections in this country is how overwhelmingly focused immigrants are upon living in the major cities in preference to regional Australia.
  Some immigrants, particularly those on lower incomes, do tend towards fringe capital city dwelling where land prices are relatively cheap – such as on the outer south western Sydney limits, where few Australian born citizens tread.
  The report found that net migration will play a key role in determining Australia's future population, with a projected 40 million persons residing in Australia by 2060 under the modelled scenario.
  Whilst it might at times read as though the report represents unabashed championing for the freeing up of Australia's borders at any cost, it is certainly not that.
  For a country largely built upon immigration Australia has long had its anti-immigration undercurrents, but while in decades past prejudices related to skin colour or a distaste for foreign cultures, today's apprehension is often directed towards more practical misgivings, particularly the risks of land price inflation and congestion on the roads of our capital cities.
  Given that immigration is evidently becoming more focused on urban areas and the suburbs of our major capital cities, these are valid concerns, although associated problems are often as much a failure of housing and infrastructure policies rather than a reason to cull immigration.
  Peter Martin of The Age concluded: "The benefits of freeing up immigration dwarf those of anything else imaginable".