POPULATION POLICY: MAJOR PARTY POSITIONS

Transcription

1 POPULATION POLICY: MAJOR PARTY POSITIONS.. Katharine Betts The ашhог ou/lines гесеn/ deve/opmen/s in /he po/it/cs 0/ popu/a/ion po/icy in А lis/ra/ia. One уеаг ago People and Place риьlished а series of articles оп population policy. These provided the demographic background and set out the positions of the two major political groupings, the Governing Coalition (Liberal and National Parties) and the Australian Labor Party (ALP-the main opposition party).1 Duncan Kerr, the then Labor Shadow Minister [ог Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, wrote that his party was thinking seriously of adopting а population policy, if only to avoid attempts Ьу the Government to paint the ALP as the party opposed to reductions in the immigration program. 2 In contrast Philip Ruddock, the Government Minister [ог Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, argued that Australia did not need а population policy. This was because, in his view, Australia was heading [ог а total population of 'around 23 million in 25 to 35 years time and would [then] Ье growing only уегу slowly' and that most people would Ье content to accept this outcome. 3 LABOR'S POPULA ТION POLICY The ALP did subsequently adopt а рориlation policy at its national conference in Hobart in January Excerpts [гот this аге reproduced below. Labor recognises the need to plan [ог ош future and will in government develop а formal national population policy. [This] will allow Australia to decide as а community the long term sustainable population we want rather than allowing population issues to Ье an incidental Ьуproduct of ad hoc, уеаг Ьу уеаг political decisions about annual immigration levels... Labor \vill ensure immigration levels аге set within the frame\vork 01' а population policy fashioned in Australia's interest.... Labor \vill restructure the existing visa classification system to better reflect ош national priorities. Australians аге entitled to live with their famiiies in Australia. Labor will not include husbands, wives and children in the discretionary соmроnent ofthe immigration program - family migrants аге people who \vant to set do\vn roots, and they develop strong and enduring bonds to the nation. Labor rejects the idea that governments have the right to deny to any Australian the right to mаггу and form а family \vith the partner of' his ог her choice.... Labor \vill administer а t'air refugee and humanitarian program which \vill а1l0\у those \vho сап demonstrate that they have а \уе1l founded fear of persecution if they аге returned to their country of origin to have our protection. Labor is committed to а genuine, independent and accessible revie\v mechanism to assess decisions taken оп migrants and ret'ugees.... The size of the annual intake Гог the balance ofthe program will Ье determined subject to the population policy Ггаmеwork. Within this, Labor will insist that skilled migration is linked to lаьош mагket needs. The untargeted independent visa class will Ье scaled back. Labor \vill also maintain programs to encourage the Реор/е and Р/асе. уо/. 6, по. 2, расе 37

2 transfer of resources and technology to Australia through business migratiol1. An aged parent scheme and а preferential relative scheme will Ье maintained. 4 ТНЕ GOVERNMENT'S POSIТION Philip Ruddock said in 1997 that Australia did not need а population policy, and has continued to speak of23 million as the likely питьег at which the рори Iation will stabilise. For example, in announcing the planned intake of 80,000 visaed immigrants [ог in April this уеаг he said: Based оп а migration program ofthis size and projected fertility levels, Australia's population should peak at around 23-million people before the middle of' next century.5 Under certain fertility assumptions tl1is projection could Ье correct (see excerpts [гот Ruddock's letter to Alan Jones et al. reproduced below and the contribution [гот the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA). It is also true that the Coalition Government 11as reduced the visaed permanent immigration intake since it сате into office in March 1996 (see Table 1 in the article Ьу Birrell and Rapson this issue). The Hawke and Keating Government had reduced the figures in response to the recession of the early 1990s, but during the period when Senator Nick Bolkus was Minister (I993 to March 1996), the program was pushed ир again. PLANNED IMMIGRA ТION AND FUTURE DEMOGRAPHY The аппиаl planning figure does not necessarily mirror the gross intake of permanent arrivals because it does not include settler arrivals [гот New Zealand. Могеоуег, temporary тоуеment has also produced net surpluses in тапу recent years (and net deficits during the recession ofthe early 1990s). Оп the other side of the equation, residents leave Australia, some temporarily, some permanent!y. Gross emigration сап Ье hard to predict if only because large movements out of the country during economic recessions produce sharp fluctuations. For all these reasons there is ап а gap between planned immigration and the actual difference that net international movement makes to Australia's demography. Critics of the Minister's position doubt that the current planned intake (set at 80,000 р.а.) will produce а net outcome below 70,000. They also point to the official population projections published Ьу the Australian Вшеаи of Statistics (ABS). These show that, ifthe total fertility rate were to stay at 1.85, а migrant intake which nets 70,000 рег аппит would take us to 26 million in At this point t11e population would still Ье growing, with по prospect of stability in sight. If fertility should fall to 1.75 (and the most recently published data show it at 1.80 in 1996), the 2051 figure would Ье 24.8 million and, again, the numbers would still Ье rising. 6 Working from these projections the critics have argued that the claim that \уе аге оп course [ог а stable population of around 23 million does not mesh with its current immigration policy. Table 1 shows that the Government has reduced the planned intake [гот the levels set Ьу the Keating Government in its last two years, but that data оп net outcomes аге still unavailable. It also shows that in the eight years between and the ауегage planned intake was 96,100 while the net average total питьег added to the рори lation was 73,900, тоге than 26,000 (ог 26.1 рег cent) lower. If these figures were to Ье projected into the future, and Реор/е and Р/асе. уо/. 6. по. 2. расе 38

3 the present Government's planned intake were to remain at 80,000, this record suggests that we might expect а net total figure ofjust under 60,000. However, the reforms which have Ьееп instituted over the past two years suggest that а planning figure of 80,000 wi11 produce а net figure rather 10wer than this. For ехатрlе, new policies which put immigrants from New Zealand оп the same footing as other immigrants Ьу requiring them to wait two years before applying for welfare Ьепеfits тау reduce the net Trans-Tasman flow. (See article Ьу Birrell and Rapson in this issue.) ТаЫе 1: Planned intake of vi5aed immigrants and net total migration: to ('0005 Рlаппеd iпtаkе о[ visaed immigrants Net total migration l1.а l1.а. average Note: А verages аге [ог the [иll ten years о[ plal1ning data and [ог eigl1t years [ог l1et total migration. The net total migration figure is а simple measure of аll arrivals (permal1ent and temporary) minus аll departures. The ALP \vas in power until Marel ВоЬ Ha\vke was Prime Minister ul1til ОееетЬег 1991 and Раиl Keatil1g trom tl13t date ul1til Marel wl1еп the ALP lost Gоvегпmепt to the Coalition. al1d 10lш Ho\vard (Liberal) Ьееате Prime Minister. Sourees: Media releases [гот the Immigration Department and Australian Demographic Statistics, Catalogue Но. 31 О 1. О. AustraIial1 Вигеаи о[ Statisties. СапЬепа. various issues It is unfortunate that the ABS projections (published in 1996) did not include а series showing the levels of fertility and migration which would take us to а stationary population of 23 million. But the article Ьу Kippen and McDonald in this issue suggests that а fertility rate close to 1.8 combined with net migration of 60,000 until204 7, with immigration rising thereafter, could produce this outcome. ТНЕ CURRENT SIТUA ТION If it is indeed the case that а majority of Australians would accept the goal of 23 million there тау not Ье а great deal of distance between the Minister and his critics. But the lack ofa population policy provides гоот formistrust, dissension and misinformation. If the Government were to adopt ап explicit population policy, the nature ofthe demographic variabies shaping the population's size and structure would Ье more widely discussed and the basic demography would Ье better understood. Politicians and interested members ofthe public could begin а serious debate about the environmental and social implications of ап estabiished set of numbers. Моге time could Ье then Ье devoted to the implications of numerical outcomes and less to unproductive exchanges about the diversity of official and semi-official projections. It was with these thoughts in mind that а group of scholars and scientists published а letter in the Melbourne Age оп 14th of March this уеаг. Though it had 18 signatories, only опе (Tim Flannery) was named in The Age. The main instigators of the letter were Flannery and Alan Jones; we reproduce its text below, together with the [иll list of signatories. (Copies of the letter were sent to Senator Minchen and forwarded to the Prime Minister and then to Philip Ruddock.) People and Place. vol. 6, по. 2, page 39

4 Population and the environment. We аге writing to express оиг deep сопсеrn оуег the lack of а national population policy. This issue has particular currency because the immigration intake levels \vill soon Ье decided. The continuing decline of the Australian environment, as documented in the 1996 State of the Environment Report, is alarming and contrary to the goals of Ecologically SustainаЫе Development (ESD) set Ьу the Council ot' Australian Governments. The SoE Report, the ESD Committee оп Popu1ation and the Australian Academy of Science all agree that оиг population size, and high rate of gro\vth relative to сотрагаые апluепt countries, аге prime factors causing this decline. 1п 1994, the House 01' Representatives committee for long term strategies published the findings of its inquiry into the future рорulation 01' Austra1ia. The report called strongly 1'ог а community-\vide debate to ргеcede and inform the development ot' а nationa1 population policy. In 1995 the Australian Academy of Sciences published the results o1'the symposium оп population, which included а joint statement Ьу the Academy's \vorking party. Point six is: It is tllerefore еssепtiаl tlшt tlle issue oftlle сопtil1еl1t's рорulаtiоп ЬеСОl11е part of natiol1al debates оуег our future. Frol11 such debates, tlle Federal Gоvеrпmепt П1Ust develop а policy оп рорulаtiоп, \vhicll should include tlle issue оfрорulаtiоп size. We believe that socia1, economic and environmental issues make the development of а population po1icy а matter of national urgency. This policy should Ье consistent \vith the goals and principles ot' ESD. lt \vould inform and make transparent Government decisions in relevant areas. The Government right1y takes into account humanitarian, family reunion and economic issues \vhen determining migration levels. As well, since population size апссts еуегу Australian and еуегу river, valley and harbor of Australia, it is essential that population size also Ье considered. For this to Ье done, а national population policy is essential. Katharine Betts (sociologist) Charles Birch (biologist) ВоЬ Birrell (socio10gist) Doug Cocks (environmental scientist) На! Cogger (biologist) Tim F1annery (ecologist) Dеап Graetz (environmental scientist) Des Griftin (biologist) Neil Hami1ton (geographer) Alan Jones (ecologist) Jetse Kalma (environmental engineer) Ian Lo\ve (environmental scientist) Непгу Nix (el1vironmental scientist) Наггу Recher (ecologist) Jon Stone (medical scientist) Frank Talbot (ecologist) Chris Watson (soil scientist) Bill Wi1liams (ecologist) As it turned out the program announced Ьу the Minister in April 1998 held the visaed intake stabie at 80,000 for (see article Ьу Birrell and Rapson, this issue). The Minister later defended his Government's decision not to adopt а population policy in а letter to А1ап Jones. This letter is reproduced at the end of this article. CURRENT ASSOCIA ТIONS BETWEEN POPULA ТION POLICY AND А COMMIТMENT ТО LOW GROWTH Мапу proponents of ап explicit population policy аге environmentalists сопcerned to 1110derate the human impact оп Australia's natural and built environment. They assume that ап explicit policy will lead to а considered approach to growth and а balanced assessment of its effects. Rational mеп and women would then look and the Реор/е and Р/асе, УО/. 6. по. 2. page 40

5 evidence, conclude that small was better, and adjust socia! policies, inc!uding immigration policies, accordingly. But there at least two other possibilities. Policy makers might look at the settings and decide that а larger population would Ье preferable (perhaps [ог economic ог strategic reasons). Ог politicians might adopt а population policy couched in soothing but imprecise language, and use it, not as а basis [ог action, but to pacify environmental critics while continuing to follow the interest-. group politics which lead to growth. For example, Labor's population policy could conceivabiy lead to а larger migrant intake. In а recent interview with The А ustralialisrae! Review, Beazley was asked about his response to calls [гот the business community [ог а higher intake. Не claimed that the Labor Governrnent had reduced the intake, pointing to the contrast between the late 1980s and the еагlу 1990s. There's по doubt at ан that the housing industry enjoyed its best years \vhen \уе \уеге operating the polices that we did in the 1980s and that \уе trailed ofi 1 теап, we cut back the migration ргоgram. It might suit те in S0l11e сiгсшnstапсеs to say that Ho\vard did, but опе needs to Ье honest about these thiпgs, \уе did. And \уе did basically at the time, not \vith ап еуе to tl1e housing industгy, but \vith an еуе to the уегу, уегу high unel11- ployl11ent rates amongst people, in paгticulaгofnon-english speaking background... Before 1 \vould increase substantially апу of the migration programs, 1 \vould want to test the employment issue... Give them [пе\у entrants to Australia] the maximum possibie opportunity to participate in the workforce and see \vhere that took us. So all the resources \уе had, \уе \vould put into job seeking [ог the ne\v l11igrants coming to this country. I'd want to see really quite high levels of' success in entry into the employment market. 7 The Austra!ialIsrae! Review then askec;l whether at 'the уегу minimum in Government he would maintain current immigration levels'. Beazley replied, "'Oh, yes", adding that the ALP would also increase the family reunion сотроnent'.8 This sentiment could теап that а Labor Government would promote а larger program in order to accommodate тоге family reul1ion immigral1ts ог, coupled with the population policy document which indicates а tougher attitude towards independent 'ski1led' immigration (see аьоуе), it could simply теап а re-focussing of the intake within the existing numbers. (lt is interesting that the population policy speaks ofan 'aged parent scheme'. If this means that а Labor Government would not ге-ореп а point of entry [ог working-age parents this would imply а reduction in tl1eir previous сопсеrn to accommodate the interests of the family reunion lobby.) Does the Coalition's absence of ап explicit population policy mask ап implied preference [ог fewer people ог [ог тоге? The Prime Minister was also interviewed Ьу The А ustraliallsrae! Review. Не said little to indicate апу preference [ог апу particular population size ог migrant intake but, as he is the leader о[ the Government, it is reasonаые to suppose that current роl icy гергеsents his preference. John Howard did, however, argue that the Australian реорlе had to accept immigration policy ог at least 'Ье taken along' with it, and he disputed the charge that critics of immigration were racist. Howard also showed support [ог the concept ofmulticulturalism in as much as it stood [ог community harmony and tolerance but went оп to qualify this. Не said that 11е believed that some Реор/е and Р/асе, vo/. 6, по. 2, page 41

6 Australians were offended Ьу particular connotations of multiculturalism Ьу, [ог example, the idea: that someho\y ог other \уе had по cu1tura1 identity until (\уе had) mass migration... that \уе didn '! геану have ап identifiable character until this сате оп to the scene... If the \yord is used to describe the success of cu1tura1 and racia1 harmony in Austra1ia, then 1 ат ан for it, and 1 don 't think there аге апу 1imits to it. But if the \vord is meant to imp1y that the one great nationa1 cement of Austra1ia is multicu1- turalisll1, then 1 thil1k that is asking too much. 9 These sentiments about multiculturalism аге relevant to the immigration ргоgram. Previous administrations have justified ап emphasis оп family reunion in terms of the need to preserve and enhance their commitment to ап image of Australia as а multicultural society. Attitudes to multiculturalism, in its guise as cultural maintenance and the goal of preserving distinct cultural groupings in Australia оуег the long term, have separated the Howard Government [гот it immediate Labor predecessors. Should а commitment to structural multiculturalism Ье strongly articulated Ьу the opposition, we might wel1 anticipate а resurgence of growth-oriented immigration policies with а Labor Government. It is possible that neither side of politics cares particularly deeply about demography and its environmental implications. Рори lation projections аге [ог the future. Моге immediate concerns ргеоссиру the present. Contrasting attitudes towards the nature of the Australian identity and its огigiпs тау in fact separate the two sides ofpolitics тоге sharply than the quеstiоп of numbers. Beazley's view ofhis nation, its origins апd future, has different nuances compared to Howard's. 1п Beazley's words: As Austra1ia has progressed through the po1itica1junctions ofwhat has Ьееп пеаг1у а century of 1ife as а nation, \уе have steadily redetlned our nationa1 identity towards that of а mu1ticu1tura1, racially egalitarian реор1е, from some inauspicious beginnings Australia has (since the mid 1960s) steadily demonstrated to the nations of'our region-to our neighbours-that our nationa1 identity does по! exc1ude t11em. We have steadi1y \уогп do\vn the image ot' а cosseted, protected, insu1ar \vhite nation \vhich оп1у \vishes it cou1d Ье in the North At1antic. We have sho\vn that реор1е Сгот ан оуег the \vor1d аге \уе1соте as Austra- 1ians. This underpins а11 our re1atiol1s \\'it11 our neighbours \vith а concrete demonstration ос our be1ief in their equa1 ity \vith us, and the fundamenta1 ega1itarianism of Austra1ian society.io CONCLUSION Мапу Australian conservationists and scientists аге concerned about the demographic future of their country. Their focus is оп the пumьегs and they аге thinking [ог the long term. The politicians, and perhaps тапу ofthe voters, тау think the numbers аге а secondary issue. They тау Ье confused Ьу them and have little understanding of what they аге ог \vhat they теап. Voters and politicians аге тоге likely to [ееl that they understand the question ofthe Australian identity, and to respond to political messages about \vhetheг this identity should ог should not Ье considered as source ofpride. Enviгonmentalists will have their work cut out to persuade the people and their leadeгs to maintain а cleaг focus оп the пехt half century and the overall trajectoгy of the country's future. Notes See yol. 5, по. 2,1997. О. Кеп, 'Тlle Аustгаliап Labor Party's vie\\'s оп Реор/е and Р/асе, УО/. 6, по. 2, page 42

7 \ { population policy', People aпd Place, yol. S, по. 2, ] 997, рр. ] 3-] 4 (Tl1e current Sl1ado\v Minister is Мartiп Ferguson.) Р. Ruddock, 'Соаlitiоп Goyemment yie\vs оп population policy', People and Place, vol. 5, по. 2, ]997,р. 8 ALP Рlаtfоrrп as adopted at the 4 ]st National Сопfегепсе iп НоЬап [гот ] 9 to 22 Jапuагу ]998. Роiпt 3 (of ]6 роiпts): Dеуеlорiпg Australia's Нumап Resources: Еduсаtiоп, Trainiпg апd Рорulаtiоп Policy. Source: аl р.огg.аulрlаtfоrrпiсhар3.i1tm, dоwп ]oaded 4/6/98 Media Release, MPS 36/98, 8 Apri] ] 998 See ABS, Projections 0/ the Poplllations 0/ AlIstralia. States and Territories: Cataloglle по , Australian Bttreau of Statistics, СапЬегта, 1996 Kim Beazley, quoted iп М. Кареl апd D. Gгеasоп, 'Beazley at tl1e crease', The AlIstralial 1srael Revie1l', уоl. 23, по. 6 (25 Мау - 15 June), 1998,р.9 ibid. Jol1l1 Ho\vard, quoted in М. Каре1 апd О Greason, 'Ho\vard pads up', The А ustralialfsrael Revielv, vol. 23, по. 5 (]-24 Мау), 1998, рр. ]2-13 1" Beazley, 'Tl1e sound of опе hand clapping', The Australial1srae/ Revielv, уоl. 23, по. 6 (25 Мау- 1 S J une), 1998, р. ] 1. Beazley expressed exasperation during his intervie\v that Ho\vard \vas not helping hitтi and the ALP to keep Pau1ine Hanson's Опе Nation party sidelined. Не likened Labor's attempts to keep it marginalised to 'the sound of опе hand clapping'. After his intervie\v \vas completed (оп 21 April) the situation \vith Опе Nation had developed further and he submitted this sl10rt essay to the Revlelv \Vllich expressed his vie\v ofthe country's identity in the course of dеvе10рiпg his case аgаiпst Опе Nation. Реор/е and Place. уо/. 6. по. 2. page 43