Category: Population

 

In reply the Prime Minister, in an effort to calm people’s fears, returns to a favourite playbook of his, putting in place a process for dealing with our population future which the Coalition dismissively describes as coming up “with a plan for a plan”. By appointing Tony Burke as Australia’s first Population Minister the Prime Minister is responding to people’s concerns, he’s acting, but let’s be honest, he’s not in any hurry and Minister Burke is instructed to come up with the basis of population policy in 12 months time. That’s after the election.

A scare campaign countered by a delaying tactic. Both disguised as responsible policy.

That’s the bald politics of it, now how about some facts.

Let’s take the easy one first.

Asylum seekers arriving by boat are NOT a threat to our population levels and have no place in this debate. Australia takes around 13,500 refugees every year, a number that is capped, so boat arrivals granted refugee status end up as part of that 13,500, reducing the number taken from what’s called ‘the orderly refugee migration program’.

So if our level of population is the issue, and the immigration numbers within that, you can safely leave asylum seekers out of it.

So why are Tony Abbott and his immigration shadow, Scott Morison, linking the two? Well it does feed into Tony Abbott’s consistent criticism of Kevin Rudd’s performance. If you can’t manage our borders how can you manage the bigger issue of our immigration levels?

But critics believe there’s some dog whistling going on too? One senior Liberal described it to me as a “clear and deliberate message that is wrong and dangerous”. He and others on both sides of politics also concede privately that the issue of asylum seekers is once again a big issue across many electorates.

There’s plenty of Australians who don’t like the idea of people rocking up on boats from faraway places, nor do they much like the idea of high immigration; an ironic yet historic truth about this country of immigrants, many of us are frightened by the idea of being “overrun”.

I was speaking to one cabbie recently who told me Kevin Rudd had lost his vote because he couldn’t stop the boats coming as he promised and asylum seekers were now being brought to the mainland. He then admitted he himself was an asylum seeker granted refugee status after, wait for it, arriving on a leaky boat.

It’s a complex issue for any government to manage and that’s what Tony Abbott is counting on.

Time for some more facts.

The Opposition says it will cut immigration numbers in order to keep our population levels at a manageable level, reducing the immigration intake down from 300,000 per year under Labor now to around 180,000 per year or below.

The shadow minister says 300,000 is “out of control” and getting immigration to a sustainable level will obviously mean cuts right across the program, though he doesn’t say where.

It’s true immigration numbers did shoot up under Labor but most of the increase was in the temporary visa categories of foreign students and temporary workers brought in under the 457 visa scheme. In both categories the surge began under the Howard government.

At the end of the last financial year of the Howard government, the net migration intake was at 230,000 per year.

Demographer Peter McDonald says immigration levels are about to plummet to around 180,000 per year and that the Government and the Opposition both know it. That’s because the Rudd Government has closed the loophole in the overseas student program which basically saw international colleges spring up around the country offering cooking and hairdressing courses, but in reality they were little more than backdoor visa factories.

Earlier this year the Rudd Government changed the skilled migration entry conditions and cut the link between studying here and gaining a visa, and in response overseas student applications have dropped by 17 per cent.

The Government also slashed the number of 457 visas, used by business to fill immediate skill shortages. The category had swelled during the boom times at the end of the Howard years and in the early days of the Rudd Government, but the demand for workers during the global financial crisis fell.

Peter McDonald says we will see a lift-off in the 457 visa category again soon because it’s the only way to sustain the latest resources boom and give mining companies access to the labour force they need.

In contrast, he says our overseas education industry will shrink steeply, not just because of the changes made by the Rudd Government but also because of fierce international competition in this profitable education market.

The high Australian dollar makes us less competitive. Add to that the pressure universities in the United Kingdom and the United States are under, due to shrinking endowments for American universities as a result of the GFC and substantial cuts to British university budgets, and you can bet they will be actively in the hunt for more foreign students to boost their coffers.

Overseas students are a money spinner, in this country bringing in $17 billion per year and creating tens of thousands of jobs.

Another fact worth noting in this debate over immigration and population levels is the number of New Zealanders moving here. There’s currently over 500,000 Kiwis living in this country, that’s 100,000 more than there were just 5 years ago, and the bulk of the new arrivals are choosing to live in Queensland, adding to the considerable population pressure building up in parts of that state.

Yes, the thought of 36 million Australians is overwhelming if you’re stuck in traffic in Sydney, trying to find a house to buy, let alone afford, in south-east Queensland, or worried about reliable drinking water supplies in Adelaide.

That’s why we do need a population policy.

What we don’t need is a scare campaign around immigration to kick it off.

A population policy is about a lot more than immigration. It’s about our national infrastructure, our roads and hospitals and suburbs and public transport. It’s about housing supply and an affordable housing market. It’s about jobs.

Its about the environment and sustainability. Former Australian of the year Tim Flannery says this continent should only support a population of less than 16 million. In 1994 the Keating government had a committee for long-term strategies chaired by Barry Jones which found 23 million was our optimum population level.

Yet we are on a path to 36 million. How will our parched landscape cope with that, where will the water come from, how will we reduce our carbon emissions if we’re increasing our population at such a rate?

And speaking of climate change, what if our Pacific neighbours find themselves drowning as sea levels rise, won’t there be an expectation that we will reach out and invite them in to dry land – literally to dry land?

The Opposition calls for a plan to rein in our immigration numbers in a bid to manage our population levels yet it presents little in the way of a plan for substantial cuts to our carbon emissions.

There’s also scant, conflicting and confusing detail about its intentions when it comes to immigration levels. In fact now Scott Morrison says a cut to immigration is not official Opposition policy. So what is the policy?

The Opposition Leader’s call for unspecified cuts to immigration has displeased the business community which regards immigration as vital for economic growth and also made many in his own party room unhappy that this important and divisive issue was unleashed in the guise of opposition policy without being discussed internally first.

When Tony Abbott announced his generous and controversial paid parental leave scheme funded by a tax on business without clearing it with his colleagues he described it as a “leaders call” which he promised would be a “rare thing”. Not one month later and he seems to have made another one, even more controversial.

In January Tony Abbott said he has no problem with increasing Australia’s population as long as we’ve got the infrastructure to deal with it. He appeared to be endorsing the Prime Minister’s backing for a big Australia, albeit with caveats.

Fair enough. Bring on the population debate, because without a plan to sustainably support a 30 million plus population many Australians will start to resist and resent immigration and that will always be a difficult debate to have and to manage. But If Tony Abbott is sincere about a sustainable population policy lets dump the ad hoc, contradictory and inflammatory talk and get serious about it.

Fran Kelly is a presenter on the ABC’s Radio National Breakfast program.

 

Of course our political leaders are aware of these unpalatable truths, and talk about them privately. But they also know they are dynamite issues that, if raised in public, need to be handled with care so that they don’t incite the wrong kind of populist debate that wedges politicians into make the wrong kinds of decisions for Australia’s long-term interests.

The unnerving part of where we are now is not the existence of the unpalatable truths. It’s the spectre, six months or so from a federal election, of the growing temptation on one side of politics to deploy the dog whistle for a purely electoral dividend.

 

 

 

When Victorian Premier John Brumby was state treasurer he saw things differently. Population growth in Melbourne was not to be shunned, but a political virtue trumpeted at every opportunity.

Melbourne’s runaway population was, Brumby liked to say, proof that Victoria was a ”great place to live, work and do business” (or some variation thereof).

You won’t hear Brumby crowing today. People have spent too much time stuck in traffic in recent years thinking about housing affordability, congestion, hospitals, public transport, water security and environmental degradation.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s rhetoric on the issue, too, has changed. Last year, as Treasury began to increase its predictions about our future size, he branded himself a big-Australia man. ”I think it’s good for us, it’s good for our national security long-term, it’s good in terms of what we can sustain as a nation,” he said.

Then came Treasury’s Intergenerational Report this month and its prediction that Australia would swell from about 22 million people to 35.9 million people in 2050. Rudd was no longer so sure a large population was a good thing, so he instead sat on the fence as the opposition increased a get-tough-on-asylum-seekers theme.

Despite changing rhetoric, the reality is our leaders remain hopelessly addicted to population growth. It is a drug they are unlikely to kick any time soon.

Size, for some misguided reason, has long been equated with importance. But there is another, more intrinsic reason for the addiction. Population growth is one of the simplest ways for a government to boost economic growth, which is in turn regarded as a key measure of political success. More people means more houses, more cars, more food consumed and more petrol burnt. All this is dutifully recorded by the Bureau of Statistics as an increase in Australia’s gross domestic product, which is in turn associated with prosperity.

An apparently circular need to feed economic growth with population growth represents a significant flaw in our political system.

First, economic growth for its own sake is not necessarily a good thing. Rebuild a town flattened by bushfires and it’s recorded as economic growth. Yet can you really argue that the town’s population, or society as a whole, is better off?

Second, even if you assume GDP is a good measure of progress, the focus should not be on GDP growth per se, but GDP growth per person. The economic pie may be expanding, but if the number of people sharing it is growing at an even greater rate, then everyone gets a smaller slice.

This is exactly what has happened in Australia. We may have been one of the few economies in the developed world to have grown over the past year (just ask Treasurer Wayne Swan). But because the population grew faster, GDP per person slipped by about 1.7 per cent over the year to September 2009. But don’t expect to hear Swan talking about that.

Labor backbencher Kelvin Thomson, who is arguing for a cut to Australia’s skilled migration intake, says there are many costs of population growth not factored into economic growth measures, including environmental degradation, loss of urban amenity, and congestion.

”I believe very strongly that if we add another million, or 2 million, or 3 million people to Melbourne over the course of the next few decades, that will be a poorer city than the one that I have had the privilege to live in,” Thomson says.

There are other issues, too. About 64 per cent of Australia’s recent population growth has been due to migration. As opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison points out, the states have little influence over migration levels, despite being responsible for many areas that are affected, including planning, infrastructure and environment.

”Growth is good only if it is managed well,” Morrison says. ”If it is not managed well it can be very counterproductive.”

The prediction that the population will hit 36 million by 2050 may even be too conservative. The Intergenerational Report assumes an annual net overseas migration for the next 40 years of 180,000. The intake last financial year was about 285,000.

As Morrison says, it would be intriguing to know when the government intends to cut the intake to bring about this average figure of 180,000.

None of this is to say that immigration is a bad thing. What we do need is to have a sensible debate about how big we want to get. Once we decide this, our politicians will need to make some brave decisions, including acknowledging that economic growth isn’t always worth pursing for the sake of it. After all, as former treasurer Peter Costello liked to say, demography is destiny.

Josh Gordon is The Sunday Age national political reporter.

 

“Sustainability” is the new dog-whistle on immigration and population issues.  Only, it’s left-wing dog-whistling.  The idea that Australia can’t support a higher population without massive environmental degradation and loss of urban amenity is a line that has been pushed by  environmentalist groups and racist groups for years.  It gives people who hate the idea of high immigration an excuse to oppose it without sounding like they hate foreigners.  Thus the talk of how Australia — with one of the lowest population densities in the world — is fragile, running out of water and won’t be able to feed or house any more people.

The normal solutions to such problem are, of course, provided by markets and price signals that direct investment to and reward innovation in areas of scarcity — an idea that’s anathema to the far left and far right.

The Government has been aware for some time that the Coalition might turn to population issues in an attempt to get back in the electoral contest later this year.  The ascension of Tony Abbott to the leadership would have reinforced their concerns.  That it would be archly hypocritical doesn’t particularly matter — the Coalition in Opposition, and not just under Abbott, has shown itself quite happy to turn its back on its strong points or key policies from the Howard years in search of electoral advantage (just as the Beazley Opposition did with Labor’s record).

It was significant that the Government plainly changed its spin on the population figures in the Intergenerational Report, from the Prime Minister welcoming “a big Australia” in November to Wayne Swan assuring us that the 36 million population estimate was not a target or “set in stone” but only reflected demographic trends of the past 40 years extrapolated to the next 40.

Evans’ changes — complete with high-profile trashing of 20,000 visa applications — and their careful timing to lead off the Monday media cycle are intended to send a clearer signal not merely that the Governments will decide which skilled migrants come to this country and the circumstances in which they come, but that immigration is to be a tool in support of economic growth, not some random factor to be accommodated.  In 2008-09, nearly two-thirds of the 171,000 people who arrived under the Government’s Migration Program did so under the Skill Stream.

The expected angry reaction to the changes from Indian students and, quite possibly, the Indian Government, will help.  Despite sympathy for Indian students who have been victims of violence, racially motivated or not, there’s a resentment toward the Indian Government and media being stirred successfully by our own media.  Who said Labor couldn’t dog-whistle as well?

To get the full story, you have to (as usual) read Laura Tingle’s coverage in the Fin, where she outlines the clash between Immigration and the Education Department over the issue and the tensions within federal cabinet.

The unspoken trade-off here though is between the complaints of the international educations sector, which is increasingly disreputable anyway despite its alleged large contribution to exports, and possible damage to the relationship with India, and the Government’s desire to show it is in control of immigration and that it is sustainable.

Whether it’s enough to cut the ground from under the “sustainable population” crowd will become clearer as we get closer to the election.