STAT102 Business Data Analysis

Analysis of business data uncertainty with emphasis on generating useful information for business decision-making. It covers gathering and describing data, the role of probability in measuring uncertainty, statistical inference using various common parametric and non-parametric techniques and analysis of relationships between variables.

Net overseas migration (NOM) is the net gain or loss regarding the population via the processes of emigration and immigration. The net profit or loss is assessed on a global travel duration of a star in or out of the nation for a one-year period and above. In the current method of gauging the final net overseas migration in Australia, it is based on travelers’ actual stay duration or absence using 12/16-month principle. Originally the NOM estimation is done through modeling on passengers' behaviors’ pattern seen in the final NOM estimates over the same period one year ago. The NOM is essential to evaluate as it has economic and social consequences to the citizens of the country (Burnley, 2001). For this purpose, our report will focus on the trend in net overseas migration and how it has influenced the Catholic social teaching of the "the common good."

Australia is ranked as one of the top countries where immigration is highest around the globe joined in the list by Canada, USA, and New Zealand. From 1945 when the first federal immigration portfolio was developed more than 7.5 million individuals have migrated and settled in Australia. In June 2015, the Australis residents' born overseas was valued to be 28.2% of the entire population a number which is considerably higher compared to other nations under OECD (Simon-Davies, 2017).

In the past, people from the United Kingdom formed the major block of individuals who are moving permanently into Australia this trend changed in the year 2010-2011 when the Chinese surpassed the UK for the first time in Australian history. From then onwards it has been China and India who provide the highest number of immigrants. Even though New Zealand citizens do feature highly in the settler arrivals value, they are omitted from the Australia migration program unless they apply for and are given a permanent visa (O'Farrell, 2001).

The Australian migration program planning numbers have differed based on the priorities, economic and political objectives of the government in power. Despite this, it is essential to take in to account the fact that the government immigration policy focus has shifted significantly since 1945 when attracting general migrants mainly from the UK was the priority. The center is now on attracting economic and temporary migrants. This pattern has seen more skilled migrants get into Australia.

The last ten years have seen the annual population growth of the country rise to hit its peak in the year 2008. The rate of 2.2% recorded was the highest which has ever been reached in the state. The subsequent years saw the area dropping to 1.8% in 2009, 1.45 in 2010 only to rise a bit to 1.8% in 2012. As at the end of 2015 it stood at 1.4% (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012).

Current Net Overseas Migration

In the year 2009 Australia's population increased by 2 % of this, the NOM contributed 64% with natural growth being the other 36%. This is an indication that when analyzing the growth of Australia's population then NOM will be one of the crucial factors to monitor.

The table below gives details of the Australia's NOM from 2004-2014

Table 1: Australia's NOM 2004-2014 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017)

Measures of central tendency and variation

 The net overseas migration has risen steadily from the year 2004 to reach a peak in 2008. Afterwards, there has been a fall in the NOM going towards the year 2010. The general trend shows that the Nom is a fluctuating value over time as shown in figure 1 and 2

Increase and decrease in the value of NOM have been contributed mainly by the temporary migration. This is illustrated in figure 3 below. It shows that there is a massive fluctuation in the temporary movement with many visas being issued in the year 2008 which was followed by a drastic reduction in the number as we approach 2010.

 Even though the value of permanent migration is continuously changing, figure 4 shows that it's less flexible compared to temporary migration. This value was also highest in 2008, but it cannot match the value which was attained by the temporary visas. Those more who migrate permanently in to and out of Australia tend to show a less figure which a bit is fixed.Majority of those migrating temporary are those who come to Australia to pursue higher education.

Out of the permanent migration in to and out of Australia, the majority are those getting in the country to pursue career opportunities that are to say immigration into the country is more oriented around the economy of the state. Those pursuing comfort of their families comes second with humanitarian migration also being of considerable percentage.

Discussion

Though the population growth rate varies year in year out there was a marked acceleration in the 2008-2009 period. This significant increase in growth rate was driven by an upward trend in NOM. A record of 315700 which was the highest NOM was observed in the year ending 2008 and was attributed to the massive increase in temporary immigrants. This number was mainly students who remained in Australia (Gittens, 2003). Due to these temporary immigrants became the most significant contributor to the NOM hence the unprecedented spike in NOM shown in figure 1 above. The above peak was observed at the time when the economy was on its downturn thus signaling that programs were not operating as expected.

From that point, NOM decreased up to a low level of 172000 by the end of the year 2010 and has been maintained at a level below the peak though sometimes moving trending upwards. This reduction of NOM to a sustainable level was attributed to reforms which were implemented around temporary and permanent migration policy settings. This was supported by other factors such as global monetary crisis and the rise in the value of the Australian dollar. Even though the NOM decreased from the peak seen in 2008, the proportion composed of permanent and temporary skilled immigrants who contribute to economic gain has grown (Markus, 2014).

Even though the Australian government dictates the yearly permanent migration program intake, the only way it can interfere with the level and structure of the NOM is by controlling the size of the program through drafting policy measures aimed at influencing the size of temporary migration flow.

The policies controlling skilled migration in the last few years whose results were culminating the introduction of SkillSelect have given the government control of the magnitude of which temporary residents belonging to the skilled set contribute the long-term NOM structure. This is because a failure of them to shift to a permanent program will see them leave the country at some point in time. For this reason, their NOM influence is balanced out in the long term (Foran, 2002).

There are elements of the NOM like movements of Australian and New Zealand citizens which are not subjected to any form of direct control though they have historically canceled each other. Of late the economic situation in New Zealand, Australia and Overseas have seen the cohort making a more considerable influence on the net overseas migration.

NOM and the Catholic Social Teaching (CST) principle "The Common Good."

With a growth rate of 25 per annum Australian population is increasing at a rate twice the world average and eight times the average of western nations. NOM being responsible for over 60% of this rate indicate that it will play a significant role in the economic status of the country. With the population growth issue comes the sustainability factor most of the Australian significant economic, environmental and social problems are now being directed to the increasing population (Patty, 2017).

Apparently, the Australian Infrastructure partnerships are currently estimating the national backlog as of infrastructure developments projects arm around $ 770 billion, a figure which is going up. With the locals burdened by this cost, we can conclude that population growth is overwhelming and impoverishing the locals, state as well as the federal governments. When this issue is combined with the environmental and social factors, it just gets worse. When the population of America grew by 43% between 1970 to 2004, the greenhouse gas emission of the country also increased by 43%. This does not look like a coincidence. Population growth has a cost aspect. Moreover, Australia moved from five public hospital beds for a thousand citizens to three a further proof of the consequences of population growth (Addison, 2002).

The boosters argue that for the GDP to grow there is need to raise the population. The only problem is that GDP alone cannot be used to evaluate the well-being of the citizens this is a crude and misleading statistic. For the country to be big regarding prosperity, then the business sector should be able to portray true corporate citizenship by availing jobs to the millions of unemployed and the underemployed instead of leaving all the responsibilities to the government.

The general prediction is that there are over 2.3 million immigrants flowing into Australia every five years. With the nation's infrastructure growing at a slower rate this tends to be worrying if all the individuals' well-being is to be catered for. The expected population will require more public investments before the government can achieve comfort for all, it is not going to be enough to leave them in the hands of the private sector (Hudson, 2010). The closed Australian economy is composed of duopoly and oligopoly which has no element of pyre market mechanism; such industries do not contribute much when it comes to the welfare of the economy as all they seek is profit maximisation. When you consider that the population at the current rate will grow by 10% in the subsequent five years it just adds more pressure to a sector which is already overwhelmed.

The high population growth is also piling pressure on the environment. The outcome will be severe environmental degradation which increases water scarcity and overall pollution. Such results make it hard for Australia to minimise its carbon emission to attain the international pollution reduction target (Australian Governmnet productivity Commision, 2006).

Conclusion

Australia gained economic respect among the top world economies through the sale of its natural resources that is iron ore, natural gas as well as gold. Some economists argue that more people will mean a larger GDP this is a misleading statement as GDP is not enough to prove that the citizens’ well fare is being met. On the other hand, improving the GDP per capita is of more significant as it satisfies the good universal principle (Leigh, 2003).

The Australian legislatures should, therefore, depict from pursuing the high immigration path. This merely meet the interest of the duopolies and oligopolies whose primary target is a bigger market for their products and cheap labor, i.e., maximum profitability. Regarding the common good notion, it will be important for the government to protect the natural resources from overutilization which will see them being depleted by immigrants leaving the coming generations with more economic problems.

The high population has pushed up the demand for housing resulting to high profits in the banks as more and more people come after bank loans, but these do not benefit the entire nation. This scarcity only means the rentals are consistently being inflated making the economic situation of the Australian's much harder. The government needs to regulate the NOM to a sustainable level considering all the sectors of the economy (Jackson, 1994).

The demand for social amenities is also being stretched as much as there is an argument that the immigrants are replacing the aging workforce it's just a matter of time before they age and increase the number of individuals the government needs to take care of under social welfare initiatives. This does not look like offering a solution its instead postponing the tragedy to a later date. Immigrants especially the temporary ones will leave the country at some time in their life, the question is, do they go it a better place?

For the benefit of all Australia needs to open its borders to outsiders for solving the humanitarian crisis as well as an exchange of knowledge with the world oversea. The problem is when the NOM contributes to over 60% of the entire population growth then it is no longer assisting nor is gaining knowledge instead the government importing problems. Before thinking about the massive GDP from the big population let Australia first ensure that its citizens can afford social amenities, the environment is protected, and resources are not over-utilized afterward all this will means balancing the influx into the country for the common good (Junakar, 2005).

 References

Addison, T. a. W. C., 2002. The impact of immigration on the earnings of natives. Australian micro data., Volume 78, pp. 60-75.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012. TRENDS IN NET OVERSEAS MIGRATION: AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY. [Online]
Available at: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1367.0~2012~Feature%20Article~Trends%20in%20Net%20Overseas%20Migration:%20Australian%20Capital%20Territory%20(Feature%20Article)~10014
[Accessed 4 October 2017].

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017. Australian Bureau of Statistics. [Online]
Available at: http://stat.data.abs.gov.au/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=ABS_NOM_VISA_CY
[Accessed 4 October 2017].

Australian Government productivity Commision, 2006. Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth, s.l.: Commonwealth of Australia.

Burnley, I., 2001. The Impact of Immigration in Australia: A Demographic Approach, s.l.: s.n.

Foran, B. a. F. P., 2002. Future Dilemmas: Options to 2050 for Australia's population, Canberra: Technology, Resources, and Environment.

Gittens, R., 2003. Honest John's migrant two-step. The Age. [Online]
Available at: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/19/1061261148920.html
[Accessed 4 October 2017].

Hudson, P., 2010. Abbott urges more migration, compassion for boat people, s.l.: The Advertiser.

Jackson, J. M. R. a. M. C., 1994. Economics, 4th end,. 4 ed. Sydney, Australia: McGraw-Hill.

Junakar, P. a. M. S., 2005. Do migrants get good jobs? New migrant settlement in Australia. Economic Record, 81(255), pp. 533-46.

Leigh, A., 2003. What Affects Inequality? Evidence from Time Series Data, Paper presented at the Australian Social Policy Conference, Sydney.: UNSW.

Markus, A., 2014. Attitudes to immigration and cultural diversity in Australia. Journal of Sociology, 50(1), pp. 10-22.

O'Farrell, P., 2001. The Irish in Australia: 1798 to the Present Day. 3 ed. s.l.: Cork University Press.

Patty, A., 2017. Forecast oversupply of doctors to hit this year amid calls to halt imports, Sydney: The Sydney Morning Herald.

Simon-Davies, J. P. a. J., 2017. PARLIAMEENT OF AUSTRALIA. [Online]
Available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1617/Quick_Guides/MigrationStatistics
[Accessed 04 october 2017].