Dangerous Dinner - Immigration: How Much Is Enough?

Dangerous Dinner September

Immigration: How Much Is Enough?

Hosted by Prof Barbara van Ernst AM, Dr Ingmar Wahlqvist & Deborah Remfry

You probably think you know where you stand on immigration. Many of us can point to people who came here and made Australia better — perhaps including ourselves or our families. Australia has benefited enormously from immigration. But does that mean more is always better? And if not, where do we draw the line?

Politicians weaponise immigration. Businesses say they can’t survive without it. Universities depend on international students. Communities feel stretched by housing pressures, infrastructure and rapid population growth. And everyone claims to speak for “the nation.”
So what do we actually think?

Is there a point at which more immigration is no longer better? How do we know when our housing, infrastructure, environment and communities have absorbed enough? Should we really celebrate population-driven GDP growth when productivity growth is essentially flat?
And then there is the harder question: if we cannot accommodate everyone who wants to come to Australia, who should we choose — and on what basis?

Should we prioritise skilled migrants, international students, family reunion or humanitarian entrants? What does Australia owe newcomers, and what do newcomers owe Australia? Can you strongly support multiculturalism while believing Australia should accept fewer migrants — and is that necessarily a xenophobic position? If wealthy countries retreat from their commitments to refugees, is Australia right to do the same?

Perhaps the real challenge is not deciding whether immigration levels are too high or not, but working out what kind of country we want to become — how many people we can welcome, what we can provide for them, and what we expect in return.

Dangerous Dinners offer an opportunity to fearlessly discuss contemporary, challenging and interesting ideas, themes and points of view.

In a relaxed, informal dining environment, we draw on the diverse expertise of our members, sharing their ideas and experiences on complex or controversial topics; to learn from others, challenge assumptions, spark new ideas or point the way for potential actions.

Dangerous because the topics may be difficult to discuss, ask the silent questions, challenge thinking, unpack pressing issues, test emerging trends. Safe because we respect others’ views, it is polite not offensive, under Chatham House rule and listening with the intent to learn.

On a regular basis, you will be able to join your fellow Melbourne Forum members for a robust discussion on a range of themes in dynamic company and over a light meal. The focus is on ‘food for thought’ with shared conversations and shared platters as part of the collegiality.