Foreword
Arthur Calwell, the namesake of my electorate in north-west Melbourne and Australia’s inaugural Minister for Immigration, famously said on 2 August 1945 that:
If Australians have learned one lesson from the Pacific war now moving to a successful conclusion, it is surely that we cannot continue to hold our island, continent for ourselves and our descendants unless we greatly increase our numbers.
With this, at the twilight of World War II, Calwell initiated the policy of ‘populate or perish’ to encourage largescale migration into Australia as a means of enhancing our national security. While ‘populate or perish’ is usually the slogan most closely associated with Calwell, national defence was not the only concern on his mind when he established the migration program nearly 70 years ago.
For Calwell, migration was also a driver of national growth and prosperity—it was a nation-building endeavour. Migration, Calwell said, was ‘something essential to our national welfare and something that is above all sectional interest’. Calwell was at the forefront of bringing in refugees fleeing the horrors of the Second World War and for welcoming thousands of displaced Europeans. He was instrumental in broadening the scope of immigration into Australia beyond the British Isles, and was known for promoting tolerance and pushing for reforms for the greater acceptance of resident Chinese Australians. His pioneering reforms were so transformative that some have credited Calwell as the “father of multiculturalism” in Australia. Indeed, in the same 2 August 1945 speech, Calwell made a point that, unfortunately, resonates with much of the contemporary debates on migration when he lamented that
… campaigns are fostered in this country from time to time on racial and religious grounds by persons who have ulterior motives to serve. The activities of such people cannot be too strongly condemned. They are anti-Australian and anti-Christian, and make not for national unity and national wellbeing but for the creation of discord and bitterness that is harmful to Australia at home and abroad.
The point of this historical background is that, from its inception, Australia’s migration program was consciously an endeavour of grand-scale nation building. Arguably, in important ways, modern Australia started with Calwell’s speech on 2 August 1945. At the time, we were a nation of 7 and a half million people, overwhelmingly of Anglo-Saxon-Celtic heritage; in another 30 years, the population had almost doubled, with the nation peopled by those of increasingly diverse origins. The migration program that Calwell initiated fundamentally reshaped Australian society and laid the foundations for our modern multiculturalism and evolving national identity.
Over the last several years, Australia’s migration program has been badly neglected. It has been used as a means to address discrete issues in other policy areas—be it filling ad-hoc gaps in the labour market, acting as a source of revenue for higher education, as an avenue to attract investment, or otherwise been used as a political tool for short term partisan gain by successive governments. Migration policy has for too long been relegated to an afterthought; regarded merely as the sum of parts of the migration system without much consideration given to its transformative historical role or future potential to shape our national trajectory. It is time that this stops, and migration policy is again given its rightful place as a central element in our collective nation building work. While migration can, and should, infuse our labour market with vitally needed skills and provide international students an opportunity to study at our universities, these aspects should be part of a consolidated migration policy based on a larger nation building vision. Since being elected to power, the Labor Government has taken great leaps towards this end, with the Migration Review and the new Migration Strategy. These are necessary steps that should be warmly welcomed. Yet, there is still more than can be done to provide a solid basis for migration policy in the coming years.
While debates around the pros and cons of migration often hinge around economic considerations—as, indeed, does much of this report—the matter is more fundamental. Migration, by definition, is about the movement of people and the formation and reshaping of communities and societies. Australia has historically shunned the use of migration to build a ‘guest worker’ program, as in some European and Middle Eastern states, instead envisioning it quintessentially as a nation building exercise based on the long-standing tradition of permanent migration. The primary concern of the migration program should be in welcoming new Australians and ensuring that they are fully integrated as productive and valued members of the Australian community. While temporary migration, including temporary work migration, must remain within the system, instances of ‘permanent temporariness’ that characterise guest worker programs must be minimised for a priority on permanency. The Government’s efforts to refocus our migration system again towards permanency and the reduction of permanent temporariness should be praised and extended.
The Committee has produced a comprehensive report for this inquiry, covering virtually every aspect of the system and offering recommendations on how to improve it. Given the importance of the inquiry topic for the development of the country over the coming decades—its economy, society, culture, and sense of national identity—the Committee felt that the matter deserved as fulsome consideration as possible.
Of central importance, many of the issues surrounding the migration system stem from a lack of foresight and long-term planning based on solid evidence. Evidence based policy-making, however, requires research capacity within government. The incremental hollowing out of this capacity has left government unprepared to implement, monitor, evaluate, and reform policy. As a matter of priority, the research capacity of government on migration matters must be re-built through the establishment of a national research institute of migration studies. Only then can we hope to see the implementation of migration policy that is fit for purpose, integrated into a nation building project, and reactive to evidence, not political whim.
Secondly, the Committee heard much evidence that Australia is losing its attractiveness as the preferred migration destination for many skilled migrants. The Committee heard convincing evidence that, at a high level, this is due to the amalgamation of immigration, multicultural affairs, and citizenship functions together with border and national security and policing functions within the Department of Home Affairs. In order to deliver a migration system of world-class standing, particularly as a central element in a wider nation building project, migration should be delivered by a department dedicated to that purpose alone.
The Committee received evidence that the migration system is failing regional, rural, and remote parts of Australia. The problems faced in Australia’s metropolitan centres, such as skills shortages, difficulties in attracting and retaining skilled migrants, access to services and amenities, and adequate housing, are amplified in the regions. While the Committee offers a number of recommendations specific to addressing issues around regional migration, the matters are so significant that the Committee felt that a further dedicated inquiry on regional migration priorities is warranted.
The example of Canada was raised by many contributors to the inquiry as a world leader in migration policy. The Committee heard that the Canadian model of ‘newcomer services’, which provides a range of services to newly arrived migrants and their families to aid them in integrating to Canadian society, was a model worthy of learning from. Australian settler services are widely regarded as world-class and have served the country well for decades. Yet, settler services in Australia, in contrast to newcomer services in Canada, are only accessible by people in Australia’s Humanitarian Program, that is, refugees. Migrants come from a wide array of personal circumstances and histories, with some more adaptable than others, irrespective of the visa class on which they enter. While generally speaking, refugees may require more supports than other classes of migrant, this is not necessarily always the case, for visa primary applicants as well as their families. The Committee was persuaded by evidence that settlement services should be extended to all types of migrants on the basis of need. Our system should be more agile in assessing that need and offering tailored supports to all. To do so is to acknowledge that migration can be an arduous process for anybody and that some require more supports than others. The societal benefits of offering settlement services to migrants on the basis of need—in terms of integration outcomes, not to mention the benefits to individual migrants and their families, in the long-term would more than offset the costs of offering these services.
While there is much to be praised in Australia’s system of migration, improvements can, and should, be made. The Committee offers recommendations covering virtually every aspect of the system, some more pressing than others. The Committee is very grateful to all those who took time to make submissions and appear as witnesses at hearings and private briefings. This evidence has been instrumental for the Committee’s consideration of the issues at hand. The overwhelming impression left by this evidence was the vastly positive contribution made by migration to Australian society; it has enriched us culturally and materially. It is of vital importance that this positive legacy be extended and improved. Migration must once again become the pathway to nation building in Australia.
Finally, this has been a long inquiry reflecting the scope and magnitude of its terms of reference. There are many people who must be thanked for their diligence and commitment. I especially want to thank the Deputy Chair of the Committee, Dr Anne Webster, the Member for Mallee, for her support and collegiality as we worked towards achieving a bipartisan consensus on issues vital to Australia’s national interests. I want to thank the Secretariat, Jeff Norris, Danton Leary, Nicole McLennan, and Lachlan Wilson, for their support and acknowledge, their incredible capacity, and competence which was of the highest standard.
I want to also thank Hon Clare O’Neil, the then Minister for Home Affairs, for referring this inquiry and I commend the recommendations to the Government and Parliament.
Ms Maria Vamvakinou MP
Chair