Are skilled migration and reckless free market capitalism undemocratic contempt for the Australian people?

A definition of National Sovereignty:
National sovereignty is the exclusive right of a government, or of its people (as in a democracy), or an individual (as in a monarchy) to exercise supreme authority over itself. In the current international system, the nation-state is the highest level of government. This article explores several different examples of how respect for national sovereignty occurs by various means in other countries that do not occur in Australia.

For example:

• Policies like Malaysianisation, Indonesianisation and Qatarisation are used in developing countries to promote the education of citizens through work experience and skills transfer from expatriate workers in foreign corporations operating in the relevant country. Generally such expats have no right to apply for citizenship in the relevant country. Such policies are clearly in the national interest, and a significant proportion of expatriates return to their home countries when their work assignments are completed; promoting the creation of job opportunities for the citizens of these developing countries.
• Another aspect of national sovereignty in such developing countries is state-owned oil and mining companies. For example Petronas in Malaysia and Pertamina in Indonesia logically retain ownership of national resources projects. Foreign oil companies must enter into Production Sharing Contracts (PSCs). They never own these state assets. The contracts allow profit sharing by the foreign corporations and the assets generally revert to state ownership after a predetermined period. This is clearly in the national interest and also provides a source of private sector finance in the national interest.
• If you wish to study in Germany you have to pass an examination in advanced German. Because German is not the global language, this effectively acts as a disincentive for many foreign students to study in Germany. Even if they did, this would not necessarily qualify such students to apply for EU citizenship. This effectively prioritises the education of German citizens in German educational institutions, rather than educating a migrant workforce to compete with German students for jobs. This is arguably in the national interest.

Australian skilled workers may get more interest from overseas employers (where such employment rights exist) than can be mustered in their own country.

There are no state mining or oil and gas corporations in Australia, and this facilitates foreign ownership of Australian assets.

PSCs are analogous to the Duke of Westminster's retained ownership of much of Central London in perpetuity. Nobody ever owns his assets; they only lease them.

Does all this demonstrate Australia's self destructive lack of respect for national sovereignty? Do most countries tend to defend their citizen workers and national interest rather than operate such strategies as skilled migration programs and reckless free market capitalism against the public interest? For the last decade or more unemployment has been rising at an annual rate roughly 60% higher than population growth.

Although some workers on 457 visas leave Australia as their contracts expire and no further opportunities become available before the specified deadlines, a large proportion remain here because Government policy facilitates the option to apply for permanent residence, working rights and ultimately citizenship. Such opportunities are often not available on a reciprocal basis to Australians seeking work in countries like the US, the UK and most developing countries.

Is Australia wrong to dispossess existing Australians of their right to employment opportunities in this way? Is Australia wrong to dispossess Australians of their right to ownership of national resources in this way?

The national policy of many developing countries worldwide is to grant only temporary working visas to expatriates, regardless of their length of stay. The reason is simple: The need for the skills is temporary, not permanent, and policies like "Malaysianisation" are commonplace, reflecting logical support for skills transfer in the national interest. State oil and mining companies operate under similar principles of national sovereignty.

The national interest is the people; not dispossession of the people. Despite bad track records of human rights abuse of individuals who lack adequate legal protection, developing countries generally understand this principle. Does Australia?