Britain does not need or want an Australian-style immigration system

The first fact to understand is that Australia has a higher immigration rate than Britain does – much higher.  For every immigrant Britain lets in, Australia lets in two – that’s right, double – as a proportion of its population. Why? Because Australia is an enormous, sparsely populated land mass and its immigration system is designed to attract settlers to move there. It’s hard to imagine a system less aligned with the stated aims of the Brexit campaign leaders.

The points-based system was designed as a way for would-be workers to move to Australia before they actually found jobs. Those with job offers move there on work visas. Those without can apply for permission to come and look for work if they get enough points. So if your aim is to cut down on job-seeking immigration, then the last thing you would want is an Australian points-based system.

The second fact to understand is that Britain already has its own brand of points-based system and has since around 2008, when the outgoing Labour government thought it sounded tough and would play well in headlines.

Would-be migrants to the UK from outside the EU have to qualify for one of several types of visa and accrue points to this end based on their educational qualifications, the job offer they have secured (the vast majority need to have a job offer), English language skills, and so on. Using points does not, in itself, affect immigration levels.

The third fact to accept is that points-based systems are extremely bureaucratic and statist. Rather than allowing businesses to decide what skills they need among their workers by giving or refusing job offers and then capping visas as and when the government so desires, they rely on immigration officials administering a whole extra layer of box-ticking.

As a way to attract talented workers who don’t yet have jobs, this bureaucracy might be worth it. But if the aim is just to let businesses hire workers who will contribute to Britain’s productivity, it’s probably better to let employers get on with it. If the Government wants to reduce numbers, then a cap (on unskilled worker migration, for example) would be a simpler method.

The fourth and final fact is that Australia does have a very tough system – for refugees, not for migrants. This is the reason we associate Australian policy with toughness, which is the sole and cynical reason why it was deployed as a headline during the Brexit campaign.

People who have fled war and persecution aren’t allowed to claim refuge in Australia. Instead, they are often sent back to their countries of origin before their claims are assessed or else shipped off to miserable detention centres abroad.

Recently, a leaked cache of documents about the treatment of inmates in one of these camps, on the island of Nauru, revealed that some of them, including children, have suffered abuse and cruelty at the hands of their guards. No one in Britain is realistically suggesting that we adopt Australia’s refugee policy as an immigration system.

Many of these facts have been pointed out repeatedly by informed organisations like Migration Watch, the think tank that campaigns for lower migration and against an Australian-style system. But that won’t stop Nigel Farage and others engaging in a completely nonsensical and cynical ploy to undermine the Government’s position on Brexit before it’s even close to being decided.

To operate in the world of facts rather than gimmicks, the public and media must banish this ghost to the annals of campaign tactics past and instead have a serious discussion about the future.