In the lead-up to the 2010 Federal Election, and following the controversy over Kevin Rudd’s proclamation that he supports a “Big Australia”, both new Prime Minister Julia Gillard and then opposition leader Tony Abbott promised Australians that they would pair-back population growth (read immigration) to “sustainable” levels amid growing concerns surrounding traffic congestion, housing affordability, and declining quality of life.
The below article published by The ABC in August 2010 explains the state-of-play at the time:
…both PM Julia Gillard and the alternative PM Tony Abbott [are] now conceding that current rates of domestic Australian population growth must be constrained to “sustainable” levels…
The Gillard/Abbott current consensus about constraining population growth does not appear to have been motivated by any voter concern about Australia’s prosperity. It has come because they acknowledge quality of life is declining, major cities are increasingly gridlocked, housing is unaffordable, there is a discernible degree of mortgage stress and infrastructure, particularly public transport, is inadequate. The population growth debate was provoked by former PM Kevin Rudd’s faux pas that he favoured a ‘big Australia’. The debate exposed a very real concern that, if allowed to continue at present levels to the projected 36 million people by 2050, population growth will only exacerbate these adverse conditions.
Fast forward five years to the end of 2015 and Australia’s population had grown another 1.8 million (8.1%) – nearly the size of greater Perth – easily eclipsing the growth rates of other advanced English-speaking nations and the OECD total (see below charts).
It’s fair to say that both Gillard and Abbott lied to the Australian people and the “Big Australia” agenda never left – they just didn’t openly admit it. And since then, problems around congestion, housing affordability and livability have deteriorated even further.
Over the past month, we have witnessed both major parties double-down on population ponzi, talking-up the economic benefits from a larger population without acknowledging the significant costs.
Here’s Treasurer Scott Morrison’s testimony at the Lowy Institute for International Policy:
…our success as an immigrant nation has been central to building the successful and prosperous economy we have today.
Not only has the volume of our immigration programme been the prime driver of population growth that has supported our economic growth, but the composition of our immigration intake has been equally important…
The Productivity Commission is projecting our GDP to be around 60 per cent higher by 2060 than it would with only natural increases in population. This is almost a trillion dollars in today’s terms.
We saw this economic impact during the years of the Howard Government when not only did we double the level of permanent immigration to Australia, but we increased the proportion of skilled migration of our intake from less than 30 per cent under Labor in 1996 to almost 70 per cent, where it has remained ever since.
The Turnbull Government is committed to ensuring that we keep this strong economic focus within our immigration programme.
And here’s shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen’s, testimony to the McKell Institute:
Now, we all know how simple it is for populists to blame immigration for any nation’s problems…
But in the Australian context, immigration has been a vital part of the success of the post war years.
Migrants come here and work hard.
As a 2015 Crawford School report pointed out “on average, migrants have been more productive than non-migrants – as measured by earnings. They have also increased their productivity more rapidly than non-migrants”.
And Bob Gregory of the ANU posited recently in a presentation that “our extra ordinary economic success since the GFC owes a great deal to the increased level of national income produced by the unforeseen population expansions generated by our new immigration program”.
He also suggests that “it is possible that the economic magnitude of the immigrant policy change over the last decade has been as large as the mining boom impact”.
And as the baby boomers increasingly move into retirement, the benefits of migration are likely to be even greater than the previous few decades…
So here we are, left with both major parties all-in on the population ponzi and the purported guardians of the environment, The Greens, conspicuously silent on the issue for fear that they may upset their ‘social justice warrior’ supporters.
Meanwhile, Australia’s population is projected to expand at a record clip to 40 million people over the next 40 years:
With most of this growth occurring in the already straining centers of Sydney and Melbourne:
Thus, guaranteeing that living standards will continue to slide.
Heck, we can’t even make the case for high immigration on broad materialistic terms. Since the immigration flood gates were jammed open in 2003, per capita GDP and disposable income has grown at an anaemic rate compared to the previous corresponding 12-year periods (see below charts).
And this comes despite growth in the terms-of-trade being most favourable across the most recent 12-year period (see next chart).
Blind Freddy – but not our major political parties – can see that Australia’s high immigration intake has been unfavourable to existing Australian residents. Not only has it failed to boost broad economic wellbeing, but left them with atrociously poor housing affordability, an infrastructure deficit that will never be closed along with the associated congestion on roads and public transport, as well as overall reduced urban amenity and environmental degradation.
It are these factors that have driven the lurch towards Pauline Hanson’s One nation, and if our major parties are not careful, a flood of support will flow Hanson’s way.
Australians are fed-up with being lied to and treated like mugs as their living standards are deliberately eroded for the benefit of big business and the property lobby.
