Executive
summary
- Australia’s
immigration policy has often been characterised as its ‘de facto’ population
policy.
- In
the immediate post-war period, Australia’s population policy was defined by an
immigration drive, with ambitious population targets aimed at bolstering the
nation’s defence capability and economic prosperity.
- In
the 1960s and 1970s, immigration and population became the topics of
broad-scale government inquiries, which advised a move away from population targets
while retaining moderately high levels of population growth though immigration
to drive the economy.
- Inquiries
and reports since the 1970s have broadly defined two approaches: ‘positive’ or
‘pro-active’ policies aimed at directly influencing population levels, and
‘responsive’ or ‘adaptive’ policies designed to manage the effects of
population growth.
- Many
reports viewed immigration as the primary element of the ‘pro-active’ approach,
but also recommended development of a population policy distinct from
immigration policy.
- Governments
have increasingly favoured highly managed migration policies focusing on
migrants with characteristics likely to benefit economic growth. Direct or
explicit population policy has proven contentious, and governments have not
been able or inclined to set out a ‘pro-active’ approach.
- From
the mid-2000s, the Intergenerational Reports and the Productivity Commission
set population as one of the three key drivers of economic growth—the principle
of the ‘three Ps’ of population, productivity and participation continues to be
influential today.
- Governments
have continued to engage with population issues, with policies, strategies and
statements in recent decades generally adopting ‘responsive’ or ‘adaptive’
approaches to managing the social, economic and environmental effects of
population growth while seeking to provide for productivity and economic
growth.
Introduction
This paper provides an overview of
Australian Government population policy since the end of the Second World War,
with a focus on the immigration-related aspects. The topic of population has
often been the subject of some contention and is connected with many other
areas of political and public debate. These areas include questions of
demography, economic growth, environmental resources, infrastructure, social
services, regional development and social cohesion.
This paper does not attempt to cover the full range of topics
or debate associated with population policy, and nor does it discuss in detail shifts
in governments’ migration program planning over time. The paper aims to
identify some of the key themes and shifts in population policy in the post-war
period, drawing on ministerial statements and media, government reports, and
reviews and inquiries commissioned by committees, advisory councils and
government departments. It is divided into sections based on broad trends and
time periods, a structure intended to assist in the presentation of policy
shifts and continuity, rather than establish boundaries or define specific
eras.
The post-war
period: ambitious population targets
‘Populate or perish’ was the term that came to characterise
Australia’s immediate post-war population policy. The phrase was first
popularised by Billy Hughes as a call to increase the declining birth rate
during the Great Depression, but became attached to the drive to bring in new
migrants from 1945, including in media headlines on the issue.[1] The reasoning for the
migration increase was based primarily on the need to build economic prosperity
and, with the memory of war still very much present, to boost the population
for the purposes of future defence of the country. The policy of high
immigration was shared by the wartime and post-war Labor governments and the
succeeding coalition government under Robert Menzies, as summarised below.
Arthur
Calwell and post-war migration
During the later years of the Second World War the Australian
Government had begun planning for reconstruction following the war’s end. This
included consideration of post-war migration planning: Frank Forde in 1944 (as acting
Prime Minister) noted the work of an inter-departmental committee established
in 1943 and the development of migration policy which was underway.[2]
Arthur Calwell’s first statement as Minister for Immigration
in August 1945, following the creation of the Department of Immigration, stated
the perceived need to increase Australia’s population:
Our first requirement is additional population. We need it
for reasons of defence and for the fullest expansion of our economy. We can
increase our 7,000,000 by an increased birth-rate and by a policy of planned
immigration within the limits of our existing legislation.[3]
The statement set out an annual population growth planning
target of 2 per cent, based on the supposed capacity of the country to absorb
additional numbers, through a combination of increased birth rates and
immigration contributing approximately 1 per cent each. Calwell noted the need
for popular support for the policy: ‘Any immigration plan can succeed only if
it has behind it the support and the goodwill of the Australian people.’ There
was a focus on migration from Britain—the White Australia Policy remained in
effect, in spite of the declaration of support for ‘new’ sources of immigration
and the rejection of discrimination against migrants in Calwell’s statement.[4]
Calwell also emphasised the planning and logistics required,
including managing the return of armed forces personnel, the provision of
infrastructure and employment, and the availability of shipping to bring
migrants to Australia. Ministerial statements continued to expound these issues
and the need to plan for them, for example Calwell’s fifth statement in 1949
stated:
We need to absorb immigrants into suitable employment; we
must house and accommodate them; we must accept them as new Australians who
will, sooner or later, share all the benefits and accept all the obligations of
our common citizenship. The problems of the immigrants are the problems of the
nation; solving those problems is the duty of us all.[5]
Ambitious population goals were envisaged:
… we shall reach the 9,000,000 figure early in 1954, and
shall have 10,000,000 people within our shores towards the end of 1957. With
this continued development, most Australians now living to-day should survive
to see their country inhabited by 20,000,000 people.[6]
According to Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data, the
figure of 9 million was probably reached in late 1954, with 10 million not
reached until 1959. Australia’s population passed the 20 million mark in
the second half of 2004.[7]
Prime Minister Ben Chifley’s statement of policy ahead of
the 1949 election continued the immigration enthusiasm:
Immigration means security. Even more than that, it means the
full development of untapped resources. It means greater production of goods
and services. It means a better, happier, more prosperous life for every
Australian.
The great immigration drive, launched by the present Labor
Government in 1945 and carried out with remarkable success, will be continued
vigorously until Australia has the population she needs to achieve the
development of all her resources and guarantee her security.[8]
The Government had established two bodies to advise the
Immigration Minister on immigration matters: the Immigration Advisory Council,
established in 1947 to advise on legislative, sociological and administrative
matters; and the Immigration Planning Council, established in October 1949 to
advise on economic and industrial aspects of immigration.[9]
Policy
continuation in the Menzies Government
The advisory bodies were continued under the Menzies
Government, which shared the policy approach of the previous government. Harold
Holt as Immigration Minister in 1956 stated:
Nobody, I believe, would claim that we have as yet the
population that we need to achieve the development of all our resources, or to
guarantee our security, and those two great objectives announced by Mr. Chifley
are still the objectives in the forefront of the present Government's planning
for its immigration programme.[10]
In 1963, Minister for Immigration, Alexander Downer, further
increased the ambition of a target population:
Our numbers grew by over 3½ millions [sic] since 1946, and of
this increase nearly 1½ million were migrants. To the migrant contribution you
must also add 720,000 children born here to migrant parents. Spectacular though
this increase is, it marks, I believe, only the early stages of a long and
successful story. For myself, I think, we ought to aim at a population of 30
millions by the early years of the next century.[11]
Inquiries of
the 1960s and 1970s: growth, but not targets
Following the immediate post-war period, governments became
more concerned about demographic trends, notably the declining fertility rate,
low immigration intake and the rate of emigration, leading to years in the
mid-1970s when net migration was very low. A number of broad inquiries in the
1960s and 1970s and their detailed reports helped create awareness of the
complexity of population issues and the interaction with other areas of policy.
As the Borrie Report (see below) noted, public opinion had become a key factor
in considering population policy.[12]
Governments became more cautious about setting population targets or large
immigration intakes. The reports noted the value and contribution of
immigration past and present, but presented their material in terms of
population projections rather than goals. Ministers also began speaking in
terms of more strategic population policy rather than numerical targets, while
retaining immigration at the core of it. The sections below discuss the key
reports in more detail.
The Vernon
Report
In 1963 the Government established the Committee of Economic
Enquiry, which tabled its report, known as the Vernon Report, in May 1965. This
extensive inquiry on economic conditions and projections included aspects of
population policy. The terms of reference stated the policy of the time with
regard to population growth and broader economic direction, and included
examination of the role of population:
Having in mind that the objectives of the Government’s
economic policy are a high rate of economic and population growth with full
employment, increasing productivity, rising standards of living, external
viability, and stability of costs and prices, to enquire into and report its
findings on the following matters:
(a) The trends in population as a whole, in the work force,
and in the distribution of the latter amongst various sectors.[13]
The report’s conclusion on population growth aligned with
the Government’s policy:
The objective of a high rate of population growth is grounded
in social and strategic considerations, but it is also an economic objective in
itself. We believe that, at Australia’s present stage of development,
population increase will assist economic growth, both directly by its effect on
the size of the work force and indirectly by enlarging the domestic market,
thereby permitting economies of large-scale production.[14]
It recommended maintaining the net immigration rate at
100,000 per year, but did not favour a population target, stating that the
concept of an ‘optimum’ population level was not useful because other factors
influenced the standard of living, including improvements in technology and
increasing availability of capital.[15]
It further noted that there were potentially trade-offs,
including pressure on resources and the need for capital expenditure to invest
in the necessary infrastructure and in expanding productivity.[16]
The National
Population Inquiry: the Borrie Report
In July 1970, Minister for
Immigration Phillip Lynch announced a series of studies on immigration and
population. While continuing to support high immigration, he noted a need to
consider broader aspects, including ‘nonmaterial and environmental’ issues.[17]
This led to the establishment of the National
Population Inquiry, also known as the ‘Borrie Commission’. Broad-ranging
terms of reference considered many aspects of population trends and policy.
However, they did not ask the inquiry to determine an ‘optimum’ population or
the ‘carrying capacity’ of the country.[18]
The term of the inquiry, from mid-1971 to the report’s
delivery in 1975, covered the period of a change in government in 1972 and the
removal of the final elements of the White Australia Policy in 1973. At the
same time, the planned intakes under the immigration program were reduced: the Whitlam
government announced a program limited to 80,000 in 1974–75. Settler arrivals in
fact fell from 170,000 in 1970–71 to 52,700 in 1975–76, the lowest since 1947
when the post-war migration drive began.[19]
The report noted that the trends that had marked the
post-war period had shifted, and that:
… the marked downswing in fertility, together with both a
decline in the free flow of immigration and a deliberate reduction by the
Commonwealth Government of the immigration intake to 80,000 new settlers a year
[in 1974–75], sets the population growth pattern along a totally different
course.[20]
It stated that should there be a policy decision to increase
the migration intake again, a total of 100,000 per year:
… would probably be manageable in terms of both environment
and resources, but, in the light of the weight of evidence of submissions to
the Inquiry, it would be against the current climate of opinion in Australia.[21]
In February 1975 the Minister for
Labor and Immigration, Clyde Cameron, gave a speech on population following the
tabling of the Borrie Report, highlighting its key findings and discussing a
need for further examination of key concepts. Although the speech was titled
‘The Great Debate: How many Australians in 2001?’, he did not seek to answer
the question by fixing a target figure. He stated that:
… the practical options open to government regarding a
positive population policy rest on the level of immigration.
The chief difficulty in attempting to adopt a positive policy
aimed at a certain level of population would revolve around the government
obtaining a consensus regarding the desirable size of population in 2001.
Given that immigration is the dynamic element in the
strategy, its role cannot be simplistically set at a steady annual average
level of intake.[22]
He stated that ‘populate or perish’ and ‘zero population
growth’ were two extremes of an over-simplified debate, but noted that: ‘there
is a wide acceptance of the theory that it is highly moral to bring population
levels into balance with resources and that a stable situation will increase
per capita wealth.’[23]
Earlier in the month, he had replaced the Immigration
Planning Council with the Australian Population and Immigration Council, in
order to carry out the recommendations of the Borrie Report and further its
work.[24]
The Green
Paper
Following the election of the Fraser Government in late
1975, the new Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Michael MacKellar,
gave a statement on population policy in March 1976. The statement also drew on
the Borrie Report, including in affirming:
It is no longer acceptable to set a figure virtually
arbitrarily as a rate of future population growth and then use it as the basis
of a population policy. We are a larger and more diverse nation than the one
which set out on the large-scale post-war immigration program.[25]
He aimed to develop a population policy strategy, noting:
Immigration is an essential instrument of Australia’s
population policies and of the broader national strategies and objectives to
which those population policies are directed.
That is a commitment to population growth, with immigration
as the prime factor in that growth. But—and I emphasise this—it is not a
commitment to immigration simply to add to our population without any
assessment of the effects of doing so and what is needed to meet those effects.[26]
MacKellar also ‘reconstituted’ the Australian Population and
Immigration Council, commissioning it to prepare a Green Paper on population
and immigration policy options. The Council’s Green Paper on Immigration
Policies and Australia’s Population was published in March 1977.[27]
The Green Paper was intended as a discussion paper rather
than a new inquiry and drew on the Borrie report to inform and stimulate public
debate. The paper again posed the question of an ‘optimum’ population level for
Australia, while presenting options and projections rather than suggested
targets:
Optimum population size will vary over time according to
particular value judgments about the rate of economic growth we attempt to
sustain, the level of our technology, the extent of environmental protection,
the amount of resources the community is prepared to spend on education,
training and retraining, the amount of resources it is prepared to set aside
for new capital equipment, the features of a desirable quality of life, and a
host of other considerations.[28]
The paper presented a set of possible national goals, which
a population policy would be a means to achieve. These goals included economic
growth and national security, as well as social cohesion, equality of
opportunity and preservation of the environment.[29]
As MacKellar settled into his term, he spoke more directly
in favour of immigration and population growth, while noting the public debate
in the area:
I believe that it is of fundamental importance to Australia
and its people to think about the size and composition of our
population 25 years and more ahead. I have no doubt that if the community
decides that we should not seek to increase our population,
and this means primarily by adding increments to it by migration, we run the
risk of becoming increasingly inward-looking and of becoming a stagnant
society.[30]
Following the tabling of the Green Paper, public discussion,
consultation and submissions were pursued.[31]
The Council continued to meet, with concerns about declining
population growth continuing.[32]
In June 1978, MacKellar gave a key ministerial statement setting out
immigration policy principles. Although the principles and the details of the
speech were very much focused on migration program issues, the statement was
framed in the context of the preceding population policy discussion. He stated
that the Government adopted a long-term approach to population policy in which
immigration was ‘the only controllable factor’ in its commitment to population
growth.[33]
Discussing a
population policy and migration planning: 1980s to early 2000s
The Borrie Report of 1975 noted ‘positive’ and ‘passive’
approaches to population policy and public debate on the topic, where a
positive approach was to establish population goals and then set policies to
influence the demographic factors in order to achieve them, and a passive
approach was to shape social and economic policy to adjust to the demographic
context.
The reports that followed in the 1990s returned to this
concept: Population Issues and Australia's Future, released in 1992,
discussed ‘pro-active’ and ‘responsive’ policies,[34] while the 1994 House of
Representatives Standing Committee on Long Term Strategies report on Australia’s
Population ‘Carrying Capacity’ termed them ‘direct’ and ‘complementary’
policies.[35]
The reports recommended developing an explicit population
policy that would actively manage and influence population levels. They
suggested that immigration policy, while a fundamental part and essential tool
of population policy, should be distinct. Also in accordance with the reports of
the 1970s, they recommended against an ‘optimum’ population level or target.
Although governments maintained the discussion on population
issues, in practice the policy planning and implementation focus was on
migration: Australia’s immigration policy was recognised as its de facto population
policy. These developments are further discussed in the sections below.
Adjusting
the advisory councils
Over the period of the late 1970s and early 1980s, refugee
issues and multiculturalism became more central topics. In 1981, Ian Macphee,
who replaced MacKellar as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, merged
the Australian Population and Immigration Council with two other bodies—the
Australian Refugee Advisory Council and the Australian Ethnic Affairs
Council—to form the Australian Council on Populationand
Ethnic Affairs. The terms of reference of the new Council retained a strong
focus on immigration issues.[36]
Macphee gave the opening address at a conference in
September 1981 organised by the Academy of the Social Sciences and the
Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on ‘Implications of Australian
Population Trends’, in which he said that ‘one important issue which needed to
be more fully discussed was whether a comprehensive population policy for
Australia was desirable, and if so, whether it was attainable.’[37]
The Hawke Government replaced the Australian Council on Population
and Ethnic Affairs with the National Population Council in 1984.[38]
Immigration
planning and recommendations for a population policy
The major report on immigration of the 1980s was that of the
Committee to Advise on Australia’s Immigration Policies (the FitzGerald Report)
in 1988.[39]
The Committee’s terms of reference were primarily to address the relationship
between immigration and the economy, social and cultural development, and
population issues. The report’s recommendations focused on immigration policy,
particularly economic and immigration program planning aspects, and did not
make any recommendations specifically on population. However, it did recommend
a long-term planned migration intake in the form of a 10‑year rolling
forecast and proposed higher immigration intake for the forthcoming year—at
150,000, higher than the Government’s planned intake of 140,000.
As part of its response to the Report, the Government
established the Bureau of Immigration Research within the Department of
Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs in 1989 to conduct and promote
research into immigration and population issues. Part of the Bureau’s role was
to provide research to inform immigration planning levels.[40]
In 1990, the Bureau of Immigration
Research held a National Immigration Outlook Conference at which Prime Minister
Bob Hawke announced that the National Population Council would be commissioned
to examine the diverse impacts of population increase. In his speech he stated:
I have said on many occasions that I favour a larger
population for Australia. I describe myself as a higher immigration man rather
than a lower immigration man.
I have said that ideally Australia might have a population of
about 25 million by 2015 or 2020—but there are too many hypotheticals to make
any such assumption a worthwhile population target for Australia.
But I make very clear the thrust of Government policy: we
believe that with proper planning, Australia has the capacity to absorb a
growing population.[41]
The terms of reference for the Council’s inquiry provided by
the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, Gerry Hand,
indicated that the report was to ‘contribute to the development of a population
strategy’.[42]
The report, Population Issues and Australia's Future,
was delivered to Government in December 1991 and published in February 1992. It
concluded that ‘Australia’s national goals will be better served if a conscious
population policy is adopted by the government’,[43] and although it was not its
task to formulate such a policy, the report set out what a population policy
should consider and address. It made seven recommendations, including:
- The Government should develop a population policy which
seeks to influence and respond to population change so as to advance economic
progress, ecological integrity, social justice and responsible international
involvement.
- Such a population policy should be achieved not by
specification of any long-term optimum population number, since a large range
of determinants are subject to change. Instead an optimal population policy should
be pursued and that refers to whatever combination of population size, location
demographic characteristics best serves Australia’s national goals.[44]
Recommendation 6 in particular addressed immigration factors
as part of a population policy, including the broad focus of the immigration
program:
- On immigration, the Committee concluded that a population
policy developed along the lines indicated would:
- accept a positive role for economic migration in
enhancing the skill level of Australia's population
- affirm the need for re-unification of immediate family
- acknowledge the need for Australia to address
international obligations via a targeted refugee program
- understand that national ecological integrity and
equity in the funding of urban growth may be advanced by lower population
growth
- recognise that migration should not be determined by a
concern for using it as a major response to demographic ageing
- facilitate non-permanent movement to Australia and
enhanced foreign aid as part of an increased outward focus.[45]
The report also recommended improved coordination and
administrative measures between government agencies. Although it did not
advocate significant amalgamation or centralisation of responsibility, it
stressed the need for linkages across policy areas. Recommendation 7 included
establishing a Population Office in the Department of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet, continuation of the National Population Council, and re-establishing
the Bureau of Immigration Research as the Bureau of Population Research with
broadened terms of reference.[46]
Although the Government accepted the view against setting an
optimum population level, it did not move to develop a population policy. One
of the recommendations it did implement was to change the name and scope of the
Bureau of Immigration Research to the Bureau of Immigration and Population
Research in 1993.[47]
The National Population Council was disbanded soon
afterwards and the again-renamed Bureau of Immigration, Multicultural and
Population Research was disbanded in 1996.
Immigration
policy as population policy
The Government’s stance on population policy was summarised
in a 1994 report by the National Committee for the United Nations International
Conference on Population and Development:
In the domestic context, Australia does not have an explicit
or formal population policy directly aimed at influencing the level of population.
After considerable public debate, the Government decided that a formal
population policy (particularly one which would specify population targets)
would not be appropriate for Australia, given its low levels of fertility and
diversity of community views as to the character and objectives of such a
policy.[48]
In December 1994, the House of Representatives Standing
Committee on Long Term Strategies tabled a report on ‘Australia’s Population
‘Carrying Capacity’’. The terms of reference recognised the contentious public
debate on population growth and sought to establish planning levels based on
the number of people Australia could potentially support in terms of resources,
quality of life, and ecologically sustainable development.[49]
The report concluded that ‘it is not possible to determine a
specific upper limit beyond which Australian society would be at threat.
‘Carrying capacity’ is a combination of political, social, environmental and
cultural factors.’[50]
Instead, it offered a number of planning scenarios, and made 15
recommendations, many of which concerned developing a population policy.[51] While concluding
that immigration policy was the ‘main instrument’ of population policy, it saw
the two as requiring distinction:
Recommendation 1: The Government should determine that
population policy and immigration policy are quite distinct, with differing
goals, although the long term consequences are inextricably linked, and
immigration is a major instrument of population growth. The political and
administrative responsibility for population and immigration must be separated.
Recommendation 2: The Australian Government should adopt a
population policy which explicitly sets out options for long term population
change, in preference to the existing situation where a de facto
population policy emerges as a consequence of year by year decisions on
immigration intake taken in an ad hoc fashion, such decisions being
largely determined by the state of the economy in the particular year and with
little consideration of the long term effects. Population policy is central to
establishing national goals and must involve the Prime Minister directly.[52]
In a speech in 1997, Minister for Immigration and
Multicultural Affairs, Philip Ruddock, discussed population policy. He
considered the National Population Council report of 1992 and the Standing
Committee on Long Term Strategies report of 1994, including the scenarios and
approaches to policy development. He posed the question:
… whether there is evidence to suggest Australia would in an
overall sense, be better off with a significantly higher or significantly lower
population: I am not aware of any evidence that provides a conclusive answer to
this question but I am quite happy to be persuaded otherwise.[53]
After presenting population projections at the time, and
noting that the Coalition Government had reduced the annual immigration intake,
he concluded that the current trends would produce the ‘reasonable’ prospect
that ‘Australia’s population is likely to be around 23 million in 25 to 35
years and growing only very slowly’.[54]
This essentially rejected the need for a ‘pro-active’ population policy as
recommended by the National Population Council report, as such a policy ‘would
deliberately seek to change the directions that Australia’s population is
currently projected to take’, and this was not considered necessary.[55]
The Government maintained this approach in subsequent years,
focusing on the management of the migration program and the importance of
public confidence.[56]
At this time, temporary migration was increasingly a feature
of the migration intake and net overseas migration. A Parliamentary Library
commissioned paper argued that:
… the Australian Government has only
a very limited degree of control over the final level of annual net migration.
It has almost no control over movements out of the country and little control
over long-term (as distinct from permanent) movement into the country. Even
major components of permanent movement into the country (New Zealand citizens
and spouses or children of Australian residents) are largely beyond the
government's control. That is, it is not possible for any Australian government
to precisely determine the level of annual net migration.[57]
In 2002, the Government released its first Intergenerational Report as part of the Budget.[58]
Governments have since produced an Intergenerational
Report every
five or so years. The reports aim to assess the long-term sustainability of
current government policies and how changes to Australia’s population size and
age profile may impact on economic growth, workforce and public finances over
the forthcoming 40 years. They outline existing population size, projections on
population growth, and discuss policy measures to respond to particular
challenges and pressures relating to population size and composition.
In July 2005, Treasurer Peter Costello announced that the
Productivity Commission would undertake a research study into the impact of
population growth, including through migration, on Australia’s productivity
growth.[59]
The report,
Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth, was released in May
2006. Its focus was on the economic impacts of migration, but it included an overview of migration and population growth over time.
It noted:
The links between migration, population and the economy are
interdependent and complex. The economic effects depend partly on the level of
migration relative to the size of the population. The rate of growth of the
population and the economy are directly related to the rate of migration.[60]
It discussed various ways in which migration and population
growth are linked to productivity and income per capita growth, including
through the labour market, supply of capital, government expenditure on
services, economies of size, international trade, and natural resources and the
environment.[61]
It considered the Migration Program and migrant selection
policies, but did not comment explicitly on program numbers or address
population policy, concentrating on program flexibility and increasing skill
levels. It concluded:
Economic effects of migration arise from demographic and
labour market differences between migrants and the Australian-born population,
and from migration-induced changes to population growth.
However, the Commission considers it unlikely that migration
will have a substantial impact on income per capita and productivity because:
- the annual flow of migrants is small relative to the stock of workers
and population
- migrants are not very different in relevant respects from the
Australian-born population and, over time, the differences become smaller.[62]
From a ‘big
Australia’ to ‘sustainability’: mid–2000s towards 2020
Government interest in population policy sharpened again
with the change of government in 2007. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s espousal of
a ‘big Australia’ proved contentious and was not pursued under Prime Minister
Julia Gillard. However, the idea of a population policy was retained, with a
shift to ‘sustainability’. The Productivity Commission and the
Intergenerational Reports set population as one of the three key drivers of
economic growth, and the principle of the ‘three Ps’ of population,
productivity and participation continues to be influential today. The following
sections summarise the concepts and shifts in policy stance.
A ‘big
Australia’ and a new proposal for a population policy
Prime Minister Rudd spoke numerous times in favour of a ‘big
Australia.’ Rudd gave a speech on economic reform in March 2008 in which he
focused on productivity, drawing on the second Intergenerational Report of 2007.
Productivity and population growth, along with workforce participation, formed
the ‘three Ps’ of economic growth as highlighted in the second
Intergenerational Report, where population is influenced by fertility,
mortality and migration.[63]
Rudd concluded:
We need the national imagination to build a big Australia—by
encouraging natural population growth; by maintaining support for a continued
expansion of the migration program consistent with the long term needs of the
economy; and by investing to ensure that the long-term infrastructure needs of
a growing population are met.[64]
In October 2009, Rudd repeated his belief in ‘a big
Australia’ in an address to the Business Council of Australia, in which he foreshadowed
the third Intergenerational Report.[65]
The third Intergenerational Report was released in January
2010, less than three years after the second report. It projected that the
population of Australia would increase to 35.9 million people by 2050, higher
than the 28.5 million by 2047 projected in the 2007 report.[66]
On 3 April 2010, Rudd announced the appointment of Tony Burke
to the new office of Minister for Population in the Treasury Portfolio:
Minister Burke’s first task will be to develop Australia’s
first comprehensive Population Strategy.
In his new role, Minister Burke will consider the likely
trajectory of population growth and the challenges and opportunities this will
create. Minister Burke will also be tasked with developing the cross government
frameworks that will be required to make the most of the opportunities, and
minimise the risks, associated with population growth.
Australia’s first Population Strategy will consider the
social and economic infrastructure Australia will need to support a growing
population, including the roads, housing and service delivery network.[67]
Gillard replaced Rudd as Prime Minister in June 2010, and
moved away from the ‘big Australia’ messaging:
I do not believe in the idea of a ‘big Australia’, an
Australia where we push all the policy levers into top gear to drive population
growth as high as it can be. […]
Let us make the national goal a ‘sustainable Australia’—an
Australia that preserves our quality of life and respects our environment.[68]
The role of Minister for Population and the development of
the population strategy were continued, with a shift in focus to
‘sustainability’.[69]
Immigration remained a separate portfolio. Minister for
Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Evans, gave a speech on 28 June 2010
emphasising the role of immigration in filling skills gaps and contributing to
the economy, while also considering the effect on population and the
environment. It referenced the 2050 population projections from the third Intergenerational
Report. A long-term migration planning framework would be developed, but it was
not to be a target-setting mechanism and would form part of the population
strategy.[70]
The speech also noted the role of temporary migration in the
increasing rate of net overseas migration, but that policy changes,
particularly to student visas, would help reduce this:
Australia's net migration levels should be driven by
permanent migration not temporary.
Thanks to recent reform measures, it is expected that the net
overseas migration figure will return to a sustainable long-term average given
that most of the temporary entrants - the major contributor to net migration,
will eventually return to their home country instead of prolonging their stay
in Australia.[71]
Developing the sustainable population strategy
A number of papers were produced through 2010 and 2011 to
inform the development of the population strategy. The Department of
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, as the lead agency on the strategy, released an issues
paper, A sustainable population strategy for Australia, in 2010. It
set the objective of the sustainable population strategy as ‘to ensure that
future changes in Australia’s population (size, growth rate, composition and
location) are compatible with the sustainability of our economy, environment
and communities.’[72]
The issues paper sought input from the community through
asking a series of questions on population and sustainability, which did not
directly address migration issues. It did, however, state in relation to
migration policy:
Governments have limited practical tools to achieve a
population target. Immigration is the most direct lever available to government
to influence the rate of population growth, although there are limitations on
the capacity to fine-tune this lever. For example, the movement of people
between Australia and New Zealand is not capped and therefore cannot be
determined by government. Adoption of a population target may limit the use of
the migration program as a policy lever to, for example, address recruitment
difficulties and labour shortages. The inherent flexibility and, therefore,
responsiveness of Australia’s migration program is lauded as one of its great
strengths.[73]
The Department of Immigration and Citizenship commissioned a
research paper released in December 2010 on Immigration, Labour Supply and
Per Capita Gross Domestic Product: Australia 2010–2050. The paper’s
modelling was aligned with assumptions used in the 2010 Intergenerational
Report. It included discussion of the role of migration in population planning.[74]
While acknowledging there were numerous factors in
considering the impacts of immigration on the economy and society, and numerous
criteria required in determining the size and composition of a migration
program, the paper did offer a numerical range for migration intake (net
overseas migration), based on optimal benefits to gross domestic product:
… migration in the range of 160,000 to 210,000 provides the
most beneficial impact on the rate of growth of GDP per capita. This ‘best’
outcome is not evident in the short term; it becomes more evident in the
long-term, especially by 2050.[75]
Net overseas migration had peaked at just under 300,000 in
2008–09 but had fallen to about 196,000 in 2009–10.[76]
In December 2010, the Productivity Commission released the
research paper Population and Migration: understanding the numbers. This
did not discuss the arguments for and against a population policy, but rather
attempted to ‘demystify’ population statistics and provide clarity to the
contemporary population debate. It noted among its key points:
- Migration flows are shaped by the economic and social motivations
of migrants and by government policy in Australia.
- Only the permanent migrant intake is controlled directly by
the government, but migration is also influenced indirectly through other
policy settings and conditions.
- Net overseas migration has grown strongly during the past ten
years, with most of the growth being in the ‘temporary’ categories.
- Temporary migration contributes to Australia’s population
growth in the long term as well as short term. In the last five years, many
overseas students and skilled temporary migrant workers obtained permanent
residency onshore.[77]
In March 2011, the Productivity
Commission held a policy roundtable on the topic ‘A ‘Sustainable’ Population?—key
policy issues’, attended by representatives from government, academia and
non-government organisations. The introduction to the proceedings of the
roundtable noted the contentiousness of the public debate and discussed the
notion of a ‘sustainable population’ versus a ‘big Australia’. The
‘sustainability paradigm’:
… arguably requires us to give more attention to the rate
of change than to some distant target level. That is, it puts the focus
on what might best be called ‘absorption capacity’ (a dynamic concept) rather
than static notions of ‘carrying capacity’. It seems virtually impossible, in
any case, to predict outcomes two or three decades into the future.[78]
It discussed the role of migration policy within population
and sustainability:
There has already been considerable debate about whether
population policy should focus on population itself (as part of a ‘proactive’
stance) or on making the host environment more accommodating (‘reactive’ or
adaptive policy). It seems evident that it would need to address both sides of
the (sustainability) equation.
Looking at the population side first, a moment’s reflection
tells us that immigration is the only component of population growth that is
really amenable to policy action […]
It has been said that governments have little room to move
when it comes to immigration levels; that these are largely ‘endogenous’—a
reflection mainly of domestic economic and, particularly, labour market
conditions […] Ultimately, however, it is government policy that determines the
outcomes for prospective immigrants—it is the government that sets the criteria
to be satisfied by applicants and that imposes caps on some categories (such as
permanent residency visas).[79]
This could be read as a critique of the statement in the
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities’
2010 issues paper (refer above; see also McDonald and Kippen 1999, above) that
there are limited immigration policy levers available to government to
influence population growth.
A paper produced for the Parliamentary Library in May 2011
notes public discussion and opinion as tracked through polling, media
commentary and academic publications.[80]
The outcome of this period of debate and consultation was
the report Sustainable Australia, Sustainable
Communities, published by the Department of Sustainability, Environment,
Water, Population and Communities and launched in May 2011.[81]
The document was called a ‘sustainable population strategy’,
not a ‘population policy’. The focus was on managing economic, environmental
and social wellbeing in the context of population change rather than measures
to influence population growth itself. In the terminology of the Productivity
Commission’s 2011 issues paper (noted above), it was therefore largely a
‘reactive or adaptive’ approach rather than a ‘proactive’ one. While it gave a
broad overview of population history and projections, it had little focus on
immigration, concentrating instead on infrastructure, urban and regional
planning, skills development, social inclusion and the environment. It did
refer indirectly to the ‘three Ps’ of ‘productivity, labour force participation,
and labour force growth’ when discussing the role of migration in contributing
to the economy.[82]
Given the public debate around population policy, and the
fact that numerous submissions during the consultation process called for a
population target, it was considered necessary to include a text box in the Sustainable
Australia, Sustainable Communities report explaining ‘why Australia does
not have a population target.’ The explanation drew on the 2010 issues paper
concerning the ‘limited practical tools’ the Government had in using migration
to influence population growth, and in preferring to retain the flexibility of
the migration program to address skills gaps and labour shortages.[83]
The text box continued:
Since the 1970s, all population inquiries sponsored by
Australian governments have rejected the notion of a population target or
national carrying capacity. Mandated population targets would typically be
arbitrary, and impossible to deliver in practice. In addition, setting such a
target has the potential to distract attention from addressing the challenges
presented by other aspects of population change, including location, age and
skill composition.[84]
To complement the population strategy, the Government began
publishing the quarterly Outlook for Net Overseas Migration, with an
annual report on immigration levels intended to ‘provide more information to
assist whole-of-government and community planning to better manage population
change’. (The Outlook was published until 2016.)[85]
Returning to
‘de facto’ population policy
With the election of the Coalition Government in 2013, the
previous government’s Sustainable Australia, Sustainable Communities population
strategy was withdrawn, but the debate on the role of immigration and
population in the economy continued. The fourth Intergenerational Report was
released in March 2015, maintaining a focus on population, participation and
productivity as the key drivers of economic growth. It did not discuss
population policy as such, concentrating instead on measures necessary to boost
participation and productivity.[86]
In April 2016, the Productivity
Commission delivered its report on its inquiry into Migrant Intake into
Australia. It discussed population policy in terms of immigration
intake, but also more broadly in terms of economic, social and environmental
impacts, both positive and negative. It stated:
In conducting this inquiry, the Commission has been cognisant
that Australia’s immigration policy is by default its population policy.
Maximising the wellbeing of the Australian community is contingent on achieving
a balance between proactive policies that influence the rate, composition and
geographical distribution of population growth, and reactive policies that
address the impacts of a given rate of population growth.
The Commission is of the view that there is no single optimum
for the level of immigration and population. The optima depend on a range of
factors — including the potential tradeoffs that are made across the three
domains of wellbeing (economic, social and environmental) and the policy
settings that are in place to address the ramifications of these tradeoffs.[87]
The report recommended that the Government develop a
population policy concurrently with the intergenerational reports and that
immigration intake should be consistent with this population policy
(recommendation 3.1). Population policy issues were further discussed in
chapter 3 of the report. The discussion was summarised in the report’s key
points as ‘Australia’s immigration policy is its de facto population policy’.[88] The notion was
not new, reflecting the previous decades’ reports and with a similar statement
having been made in the 1994 report on Australia’s Population ‘Carrying
Capacity’ (see above). It did however become a much-repeated phrase in
commentary in the following years.[89]
The Government did not make a response to the inquiry and did not commit to
developing a population policy.
In 2018, the Treasury and the Department of Home Affairs
released a joint research paper, Shaping a nation: population growth and
immigration over time, intended ‘to inform discussion and debate’. As a
research paper, it did not make recommendations, and the foreword stated it did
not constitute government policy. The paper provided an overview of population
trends, net overseas migration, and the migration intake, both permanent and
temporary, and the contribution of these to economic growth:
Migration contributes to the economy in a number of ways.
These can be thought of as contributions through the demand side of the
economy, and the supply side of the economy. On the demand side, permanent
migrants increase overall consumption in the economy by enlarging the pool of
consumers, encouraging personal and business capital flows, and requiring
government services. Temporary migrants can increase exports, including
education exports. On the supply side, migration adds to the supply of goods
and services through the 3Ps—population, participation and productivity.[90]
The Government continued to draw on these products when
discussing population policy, for example Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull stated
in an interview in July 2018:
NEIL MITCHELL: So you reject them saying there is no long
term planning around population.
PRIME MINISTER: Well the answer is that there is planning
about population and the intergenerational reports that Peter Costello … started,
I think back in 2002, are looking at that. But the immigration, the skilled
migration program, responds to demands of our economy. And so we should not be
bringing in anybody over and above whom we need. […]
NEIL MITCHELL: I guess the key on this is some of your own
parliamentarians on your side of parliament saying we now need a Senate
inquiry—or some sort of inquiry—into the population levels and how we handle
it. Will that happen?
PRIME MINISTER: Well, I'll talk to my colleagues about it. I
mean this is what Parliament does, it has inquiries. There is a Standing
Committee a Select Committee in fact, on immigration, a Joint Committee on
Immigration. It's always open to continue and is constantly reviewing the
migration program.[91]
The current
framework for population planning
In the past few years, the Government has re-established a
population framework, along with a revived government research body, the Centre
for Population. The focus has continued to be on planning for
population, that is, a broadly ‘adaptive’ approach. Immigration, the
‘proactive’ element, remains a largely separate planning process, with recent
Migration Program intakes reduced from the peaks of the mid-2010s.
On taking office in late August 2018, Prime Minister Scott
Morrison appointed Alan Tudge as Minister for Cities, Urban Infrastructure, and
Population. This re-instatement of population in a ministerial title linked
population issues firmly with services, concerns on overcrowding, and regional
distribution—Morrison called the role ‘Minister for congestion busting’.[92]
Tudge’s speeches in this role concentrated on infrastructure and congestion.[93]
Immigration remained a separate portfolio, held by David
Coleman. However, when Coleman took leave from December 2019, Tudge also
assumed the role as Acting Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant
Services and Multicultural Affairs until the next ministerial reshuffle announced
on 18 December 2020. Alex Hawke moved into the immigration portfolio and the
‘population’ label again disappeared from ministerial titles at that point.[94]
Morrison put the population discussion on the agenda for the
Council of Australian Governments (COAG). It was agreed at the December 2018
meeting of COAG that a COAG Treasurers’ Forum on Population would be created to
develop a framework for national population and planning.[95]
On 20 March 2019, the Government released Planning for
Australia's future population. The document drew together a range of
programs on infrastructure, urban and regional investment, and visa settings to
encourage migrants to settle in regional areas. It confirmed an approach of
Commonwealth, state, territory and local government collaboration via the
Treasurers’ Forum to develop the National Population and Planning Framework,
and announced that a Centre for Population would be established to provide a
focal point on improving data and research across government.[96]
The plan foreshadowed a reduction in the annual migration
program planning level from 190,000 to 160,000, which was confirmed over the
forward estimates in the 2019–20 Budget.[97]
The Planning for Australia's future population document
was re-released in September 2019 and incorporated some amendments and updates,
including measures that came into effect on 1 July 2019 and the
establishment of the Centre for Population.[98]
Portfolio responsibility for population had been transferred
from the Infrastructure portfolio to the Department of the Treasury following
the May 2019 election. The Centre for Population was established within the Treasury
with funding made available from 1 July 2019, and was officially launched
on 4 October 2019. Tudge stated in the media release that:
The Centre will provide data and policy analysis to support the
following broader objectives:
1. To
support Australia’s economic growth;
2. To
ensure the liveability of our cities and ongoing strength of our regions;
3. To
achieve a more optimal settlement pattern in Australia; and
4. To
ensure Australia remains united and together as a people.
In the immediate term, it will focus on particular tasks to
support these objectives, including integrating data, better forecasting,
greater transparency and initial research.[99]
The Centre’s
webpage lists
three objectives for its work: ‘engage and collaborate’, ‘enrich the evidence
base’, and ‘inform policy’. The website provides key publications (including Planning for Australia's future
population), data and research papers, and short information summaries on population topics.[100]
Following from its commitment in December 2018 (see above), COAG
agreed the National Population and Planning Framework in March 2020.[101]
The Framework’s objectives were to:
… improve Commonwealth, States and Territories and local
governments’ understanding of populations, population change and its
implications, and set-out a plan for government collaboration on the challenges
and opportunities these changes present.[102]
It laid out a forward work program in the form of a set of
action items, a number of which have been overtaken by the cessation of COAG
and the establishment of the National
Federation Reform Council (NFRC), announced on 29 May 2020.[103]
The NFRC included a National Cabinet Reform Committee on Population and
Migration in lieu of the Treasurers’ Forum on Population (although it is not
clear at the time of writing whether the committee will automatically take on
all the action items which fell to the Treasurers’ Forum on Population).[104]
Many of the Framework’s action items, particularly those
related to research or data, were to be taken up by the Centre for Population.
Key action items included:[105]
- The Centre for Population to publish a population plan every
three years which would:
- map
objectives, forecasts, projections, actuals and outcomes, including an
explanation of any differences,
- factor
in state, territory and local government plans, and
- analyse
the costs and benefits of population change.
- The Commonwealth to release an annual population statement
containing information on actual and expected population trends, drivers of
population change, and ‘details of assumptions and methods used to develop the
population estimates used in the Budget’.
- The Commonwealth to institute multi-year planning for permanent
migration.
In terms of migration aspects, one action for the Centre for
Population was to study:
… the contribution of temporary migrants to net overseas
migration, including internal movements of temporary migrants between
jurisdictions, movements of temporary migrants between visa classes; and total
length of stay.[106]
COVID-19
disruption of planning and projections
The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted planning across government from
2020, with both the 2020–21 Budget and the Intergenerational Report postponed. It
has left the way forward for some of the population framework uncertain, with
the previous assumptions requiring reassessment.
In accordance with the National Population and Planning Framework
action item (above), the Government released its first population statement on
4 December 2020.[107]
It was not a policy document, but as per the tasking, presented historical
trends in population growth and distribution, followed by projections,
including the role of net overseas migration. The projections attempted to
account for the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and were based on assumptions
consistent with those used in the 2020–21 Budget.[108]
The 2020–21 Budget was postponed until October 2020, with
the 2021–22 Budget returning to the usual May cycle. Even so, the difference
between the net overseas migration forecasts projected by the Treasury (the
Centre for Population) between the two Budgets reflected the unpredictability
of the pandemic’s effects. Immigration was largely halted due to the border
closures in response to COVID-19 (from March 2020).[109]
In 2020–21, net overseas migration was negative for the first time since 1946:
the 2020–21 Budget predicted a level of -71,600, but the 2021–22 Budget predicted
a lower figure of -96,600. Population growth was around 0.1 per cent—the lowest
growth in over a hundred years.[110]
The actual figure from the ABS for net overseas migration in
2020–21 was -88,800.[111]
The Mid‑Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook released in December 2021
revised the Budget forecasts slightly upwards, with net overseas migration
projected to be negative again in 2021–22, before returning to
near-pre-COVID-19 levels of 235,000 by 2024–25.[112]
Originally planned for release in July 2020, the next
Intergenerational Report was postponed due to the uncertainty created by the
COVID-19 pandemic. The Government announced on 20 March 2020 that it would be
due a year later in mid-2021.[113]
It was released on 28 June 2021.[114]
Like its predecessors, the 2021
Intergenerational Report drew
on the framework of the ‘three Ps’, which it set out in a diagram on page 3.
Population, including the effects of immigration policy settings, is discussed
in chapter 2. Although the COVID-19 pandemic ‘is causing a short-run shock to
net overseas migration’ which has caused the Treasury to revise its population
projections down for the first time, the projections to the year 2060–61 assume
a return to pre-pandemic migration settings:
The long-run assumption of 235,000 people per year [net
overseas migration] is based on current Government policy, with annual planning
levels of the permanent Program assumed to continue at the 2023-24 level of
190,000 people, the Humanitarian Program assumed to continue at 13,750 people,
and flows of temporary migrants, Australian citizens and departing permanent
residents assumed to continue in line with historical averages.[115]
The report briefly discussed the impacts of migration, with
a similar framework to the Productivity Commission’s 2016 Migrant Intake
into Australia report—it noted that in considering the costs and benefits
of migration, economic metrics such as GDP are not the only relevant measures,
and that social and environmental factors play a role in determining planning
goals. It continued the argument for well-managed, sustainable migration and
infrastructure planning, referencing the National Population and Planning Framework.[116]
The second Population Statement was released on 20 December
2021 by Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar.[117]
The foreword from the Executive Director of the Centre for Population described
the document as the Centre’s ‘flagship annual publication.’[118]
The document did not have the same historical content
already covered by the first Statement, but was otherwise similarly structured,
updating and refining the current data and projections. It used the same key
assumptions as the December 2021 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook and
elaborated on its projections for net overseas migration. With a more advanced perspective
from further into the pandemic, it provided more insight into the effects of
the travel restrictions and reduced migration, and remained cautious in how its
projections could be affected by the continuing unpredictability of the course
of the pandemic.[119]
Conclusion
While recent publications such as the population statements issued
so far do not constitute an explicit population policy, they reflect the
Government’s current settings including via the assumptions used for net
overseas migration projections. The 2021 Population Statement notes for example
that the long-run net overseas migration assumption is 235,000 people per year,
dependent on planning levels for permanent migration, flows of temporary
migration, flows of Australian citizens arriving and departing, and permanent
residents who subsequently emigrate.[120]
It states:
With government planning levels accounting for the largest
component to the long-run assumption [190,000 per year from 2023–24], it is
highly sensitive to any future decisions by the Australian Government to
increase or decrease the planning levels for the migration program.[121]
At the time of writing, the pandemic outlook remains
uncertain. A federal election is due by May 2022. The Government has adopted a
phased approach to the re-opening of Australia’s international borders, with
vaccination programs, visa categories and ‘travel bubbles’ with eligible
countries proposed to determine the next steps.[122]
The Government has set itself the task of preparing a range
of documents for the future, including the Intergenerational Report, the annual
population statements and the proposed three-yearly population plan, as well as
its continued management of permanent and temporary migration. It will
therefore have the opportunity to reassess the impacts and adjust its policy
approaches.