Another day, another inquiry into skilled migration

The latest is from the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, which has just launched an Inquiry into the Value of Skilled Migration to Australia, with submissions due January 2026.
On paper, it is all very positive. The terms of reference talk about skilled migration driving productivity, filling skills gaps, boosting economic growth and enriching our culture. All things most of us would nod along to.
But I keep coming back to the same question: if we genuinely believe skilled migration is essential to Australia’s prosperity, why do we make it so hard to do in practice?
Are we conflicted about skilled migration?
You get the sense that, as a country, we are deeply conflicted about this.
On one hand, governments of all colours quietly rely on skilled migration to fill the very real gaps in our workforce – including in the automotive trades.
On the other hand, we keep commissioning reviews and inquiries, often circling the same issues: wages, housing, infrastructure, training, regional needs.
So, what’s going on? Are we:
• uncomfortable admitting that we simply haven’t trained enough people in critical trades?
• worried that relying on skilled migration is some kind of policy failure, instead of one of the tools in a sensible workforce strategy?
• more comfortable “reviewing” the problem than actually fixing the parts of the migration system that everyone agrees are broken?
It starts to look like we’re happy to benefit from skilled migration – but not quite ready to own it.
If it is policy, why does it feel like punishment?
In automotive, we hear the same thing over and over again from employers: “we tried to sponsor someone, and it was so complex and expensive we’re not sure we’d ever do it again.”
If skilled migration is a legitimate, long-term part of our workforce mix, why does it so often feel like punishment for the businesses that use it?
For a small or medium workshop, sponsoring a skilled migrant is not a casual decision. There is:
• the cost of migration agents and visa fees,
• the time and paperwork,
• the uncertainty and delay, and
• the risk that, after all of that, a bigger employer offers a higher wage and your investment walks out the door.
We’re effectively saying to small businesses: “we need you to help solve the skills crisis… but you’re going to have to navigate one of the most complicated systems in government to do it.”
If this is how we meet our skills needs in practice, we should be honest about that – and design a system that small businesses can use without needing a spare compliance department.

Are we embarrassed we can’t do it all domestically?
There’s also a quiet embarrassment running through this debate.
We like to say we’ll fix everything through domestic training alone: more apprentices, more TAFE, more incentives.
And yes – we absolutely should be doing more on domestic training. That’s non-negotiable.
But even in the best-case scenario, it takes years for an apprentice to become a qualified tradesperson.
Our skills crisis is here now. Skilled migration is not an alternative to training; it is a bridge between the workforce we have and the workforce we need.
Maybe it is time to drop the pretence that using skilled migration is a sign of failure. It is a pragmatic reality.
The real failure would be to keep using it – but never design a system that is humane for the worker and workable for the employer.
Your experience: have you tried it? What did it cost?
This is where you come in. If you’ve sponsored a skilled migrant technician, tried and given up, or seriously looked into it and decided it was too hard or too expensive, then we want to hear from you. Tell us:
• What did the process actually cost you – in money, time and stress?
• What parts of the system worked, and what was a nightmare?
• Did you feel supported as a small business, or like you were being treated as a problem?
Help us shape a meaningful submission
We will be making a submission to the Inquiry into the Value of Skilled Migration to Australia, and we want it grounded in real workshop experience, not just policy theory.
If we are going to keep reviewing skilled migration, let’s at least make sure the people who rely on it – and struggle with it – are front and centre in the conversation.
So please, engage with us. Share your story, your numbers, your frustrations, and your ideas for how this could work better for independent repairers.
If skilled migration is part of how Australia keeps the wheels turning, then the people keeping those wheels turning deserve a system that’s honest, efficient and fair.

To contribute your experience to our submission, please email advocacy@aaaa.com.au