You'd think the Albanese government would spend more time explaining why immigration has been so high recently.

It could use the opportunity to talk about the flaws in the system it inherited from previous governments, and explain how it's trying to fix things.

How much control do you think the government has over the number of people coming into Australia? The answer's quite surprising.

But let's clear something up first.

During the discussion about high rates of net overseas migration we've seen in the past two years, some politicians have been ignoring crucial information.

They have been neglecting to remind voters of the historic decline in immigration we saw in the lockdowns, which led to Australia's population growth turning negative for a while, and that we're therefore experiencing an element of "catch-up" to previous migration patterns.

See the graph below.

In the four years preceding the lockdowns in early 2020, Australia's population grew by roughly 97,500 people per quarter on average.

In the four years after the lockdowns began, our population has grown by roughly 94,700 people per quarter.

Let that sink in: we've had slightly less population growth in the past four years than we had in the four years before the COVID pandemic.

But back to the topic of control over migration.

Last week, Treasury Secretary Steven Kennedy told senators in Canberra that net overseas migration was likely to be higher in 2023-24 and 2024-25 than his department had forecast in the budget.

Why? Because we're seeing increasing numbers of New Zealand citizens coming to Australia to live and work to escape New Zealand's dreary economy.

We're also seeing lower-than-expected migrant departures from Australia. He said rather than depart, many migrants are extending their stay by applying for new visas, including permanent visas.

These developments have surprised Treasury officials.

What's going on?

Temporary migration linked to international treaty obligations

Let's revisit the Parkinson Review quickly, because that will help us to understand.

In late 2022, the Albanese government asked former public service chief Martin Parkinson to conduct a "wholesale review" of Australia's migration system, and the final report of that review was handed to government in March 2023.

The review found Australia's migration system was "not fit for purpose."

The government relied on the insights in that review to produce its Migration Strategy for Australia, which it released in December 2023. It's now working on implementing elements of that strategy.

In his review, Dr Parkinson explained how our migration system has evolved in recent decades, and why there are so many problems that need fixing.

But here's the first thing to think about.

There are important differences between our "permanent" and "temporary" migration programs.

Dr Parkinson said Australia mainly relies on a permanent migration cap to manage migrant numbers and drive predictability and stability in our population growth, while temporary migration isn't considered in the annual planning process.

Why do we do things that way? Partly for historical reasons.

He said the first cap on permanent migration was introduced decades ago, at a time when temporary labour migration was almost non-existent and most temporary migrants had a distinct pathway to permanent residence in Australia.

It meant the permanent migration cap effectively acted as a cap on total population growth.

But he said the migration system has changed dramatically in recent decades.

He said the stock of temporary migrants in Australia has nearly doubled in the past 15 years, while pathways to permanent residence have been reduced.

It means the permanent migration cap has become a very limited tool for managing migration flows, because temporary migration has become such a big part of our overall migration intake.

The Parkinson Review recommended the government should therefore start managing temporary migration as well, but it also noted it wouldn't be simple to do.

"In considering where to cap temporary migration flows, regard has to be given to Australia's trade agreements," the review said.

"A number of bilateral free trade agreements commit Australia to not limiting the total number of temporary business visas to be granted. A move to limit temporary entry places may need to provide explicit exemptions."

Come again? 

Has Australia made commitments to other countries that make it difficult for Australia to control its migration numbers?

Yes it has.

Australia has a long-standing agreement with New Zealand, the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement, that allows for the free movement of citizens between both countries.

But in recent decades, successive Coalition and Labor governments have also signed numerous agreements with other countries that contain labour mobility clauses that allow people from overseas (holiday-makers, students, etc) to work in Australia, and for Australians to work overseas.

It was a deliberate decision by those governments to include Australia in the liberalisation of global labour markets.

Here's what the Parkinson Review said about that:

Mobility clauses feature in all the trade agreements Australia enters into, at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and under most free trade agreements (FTAs).

For many of our trading partners, particularly those in the region, mobility provisions are a key interest in their trading relationship with Australia. 

As a result, it is not uncommon for countries to seek improvements in visa arrangements as a precondition for removing trade restrictions on Australia's interests, such as agriculture exports. Australia's international migration policy is thus linked to market access for our goods and services.

As such, Australia needs to be mindful that broader changes to the migration system in Australia may create a risk of non-compliance with international treaty obligations, such as those made as part of bilateral FTAs and as a member of the WTO.

Areas of potential breach include (but are not limited to):

• Visa stay periods, which may be affected by system reform measures dealing with the issue of ‘permanently temporary’ visa status; and
• Commitments not to cap temporary visas and numerical limits on temporary visas, which may be affected by any shift to cap temporary (as well as permanent) migration.

Does that help to make sense of things?

It explains why government officials can be caught off guard by high levels of net overseas migration from time-to-time.

The modern growth in temporary migration in Australia has been enabled by the introduction of "demand-driven visas" — not only temporary skilled migrant visas but particularly student and graduate visas — which aren't subject to the same annual caps as the permanent migration intake.

We should target net overseas migration 

So what's next?

The Parkinson Review said Australia's permanent migration caps were no longer sufficient to manage our population growth. It said the link that once existed between the permanent migration cap and the stock of temporary migrants in Australia "has been broken."

It said if we shifted to a system where authorities managed permanent and temporary migration it would be complicated, but it shouldn't stop the government from doing so.

Why? Because big increases in unplanned migration can cause problems.

"During periods of high net overseas migration (NOM), like 2006–09 and 2016–19, there were increased concerns about congestion in cities, as infrastructure and other support did not keep pace with population growth in some areas. This led to falling support for the migration program," the review noted.

See the graph below.

"If the supply of infrastructure and housing does not keep up with demand created by migration, the quality of infrastructure and housing services may deteriorate, and prices may rise," it continued.

"As a result, material and non-material living standards of the local population and newly arrived migrants may be undermined.

"Costs imposed on local communities (housing, labour market impacts) can also reduce cohesion and have an impact on migrant integration and prosperity," it said.

It had more examples, but you get the point.

The review said if the federal government brought all migration together (temporary and permanent) for cabinet consideration at a single point in time, aligned with the budget cycle, it would allow for more "holistic" decision-making. 

It said longer-term migration planning would also bring more stability and predictability to Australia's economy.

"A longer-term planning cycle (for example, 10 years) sets expectations for businesses and provides certainty to the local population that both permanent and temporary migration will be monitored and well managed," the review said.

"Long-term planning will also be required if the government wants to make significant shifts: for example, today's economy is heavily reliant on temporary migrants, and some sectors are particularly dependent on these people – a move to a different temporary/permanent composition will require measured and considered change," it said.

The Albanese government could be talking about these ideas every day.

It would help to remind voters that the problems in our migration system have been festering for decades, they can't be fixed overnight, but the government's aware of them and it's working on it.