Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Could the US election result dent the 'Huge Australia' plan?

By Stephen Saunders - posted Monday, 11 November 2024


Forever, powerful pro-migration stakeholders have wrung their hands in mock distress. By golly, if only we had a "population plan". We should have an "immigration plan".

Of course, we do have such a plan – Big (or Huge) Australia. Labor and Liberal have been devoted to it. Could the US Democrats immigration-trainwreck tempt Peter Dutton to genuinely shift?

Treasury writes the plan, OK?

It doesn't matter how much cost-of-living hardship and real-wages freefall that Australian households endure - Treasurer Chalmers soft-soaps them with Treasury Building talking-points.

Advertisement

Memo to ABC – naturally, said Treasurer maintains a national population plan. As does any major OECD economy. Despite our resources cornucopia, lazy population growth is a (the) major driver of economic "growth":

Australia's low-publicity population plan requires mega (1.5-2.5%) population growth by OECD norms (0.5%), powered by immigration. This allows Budget to assume expansive economic benefits from population growth, discounting the obvious economic and environmental costs.

Every year, this pernicious plan soft-shoes into Budget Paper 3, as Appendix A.

No justification is offered. Treasurer doesn't discuss it. Not even on Budget night.

Consolation prize, at least it lights a guttering candle on the massive Treasury targets for net-migration, plus the resultant estimates for population growth. Of which, the "natural increase" or non-migration component is very low, currently 20% and less, and highly predictable.

The plan doesn't even publish population growth estimates, percentage wise. DIY.

Advertisement

The latest Appendix (May 2024) implies population growth about 2% over 2023-24, though the actual is more like 2.5%. That's way higher than economic growth 1.5% over the same period, with ABS advising a "sixth consecutive quarter of GDP per capita falls". Ouch for voters.

Labor's all-time immigration betrayal

In its reform agenda, Whitlam Labor was not so concerned with revving population growth. But Hawke-Keating Labor celebrated "multiculturalism", openly suggesting population numbers were a fiefdom for politicians not voters.

However, mega-migration didn't really take off, until the 21st century. Net migration of 200,000 was unknown to Australia, before 2007. Then we topped 300,000, the following year.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

5 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Stephen Saunders is a former APS public servant and consultant.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Stephen Saunders

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 5 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy