Rita Panahi: Voters want a say on Australia’s population growth
HOW big should Australia be by 2050? Politicians have failed to articulate a clear policy so now it’s time voters have their say, writes Rita Panahi.
Rita Panahi
Don't miss out on the headlines from Rita Panahi. Followed categories will be added to My News.
PAULINE Hanson’s promised Bill for a plebiscite on migration has little chance of success when parliament resumes in August.
However, an election day plebiscite on population, not migration, is precisely what this country needs.
It is an issue of supreme importance and yet successive governments have failed to articulate a clear policy on how big and how quickly we should grow, and what Australia’s target population should be in 2025 or 2050.
IMMIGRATION TO MELBOURNE AT RECORD LEVELS
DEBATE OVER IMMIGRATION SET TO HEAT UP
Population has an impact on just about every facet of daily life, particularly in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane where numbers have soared in recent decades.
In survey after survey, Australians have demanded a halt to the high migration numbers that are fuelling the growth, but both the Coalition and Labor have steadfastly ignored majority opinion and pushed ahead with a Big Australia strategy.
Just how big has not been articulated or debated, but as it stands Australia has one of the highest population growth rates in the developed world and we will pass 25 million in August.
A plebiscite would force the major political parties to heed public opinion on this most crucial of issues which effects everything from your daily commute to work to housing affordability.
And I say that is one of the minority who supports big Australia and believes high migration is necessary to fuel economic growth particularly in a country with an ageing population.
However, it is clear that most Australians are in favour of stopping the high numbers and fast. An Essential Research poll commissioned by SBS in 2016 showed that 59 per cent thought that the number of migrants coming to Australia over the past decade had been too high, and a similar number were against increasing the refugee intake.
Last year research by The Australian Population Research Institute revealed that three in four voters believed we were “full” and did not support any further population growth.
And the latest poll on the issue from The Lowy Institute, released earlier this month, had 54 per cent opposed to the current rate of migration.
The real figure may be even higher given a 2018 poll by TAPRI showed that many Australians are reluctant to share their views on immigration levels for fear of being labelled racist; 65 per cent of respondents said that those who oppose high migration numbers are seen as racist and that made them feel “threatened and inhibited”.
One of the advantages of being an island nation with sound border protection policies and a relatively low and predictable birthrate is that we can determine what level of migration is needed to achieve our ideal population level.
But first we need to determine what the number is and that’s where direct democracy in the form of a plebiscite makes perfect sense.
A plebiscite asking what Australia’s population should be in 2040 with two options —
25 to 30 million or 31 to 35 million — would ensure that the majority view is respected and end the widening gap between public opinion and political policy.
The current approach is not only haphazard with little in the way of long-term planning but it also ignores community sentiment given both major political parties are on a unity ticket on population and growth.
Back in 1999 the federal government put out a press release telling us that Australia’s population, then at 19 million, would pass the 25 million mark around 2050, but we will reach that milestone in a couple of months thanks to a significant surge in our annual intake of permanent residents.
In 2000-01 the number of permanent residents was only 80,610. This year we will see 190,000 permanent residents plus another 18,000 to 19,000 admitted under the humanitarian program plus many hundreds of thousands more here on temporary visas including students and workers.
Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton has discussed lowering the annual intake of permanent residents from 190,000 to 170,000 with Coalition colleagues, but was rebuked by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Treasurer Scott Morrison. While former PM Tony Abbott has proposed lowering the annual intake by 80,000 to 110,000.
Migration has been the dominant factor in our soaring numbers. In 2017 it accounted for 62 per cent of the nation’s population growth.
On current estimates, the population will have grown to 37.5-41.5 million by 2050. An election day plebiscite is cheaper to run than a regular plebiscite and would restore confidence in the political process and give disenchanted voters reason to believe that their vote counts.
However, there are some who only embrace democracy when their side is winning.
Witness the epic meltdown in the US and calls for revolutionary change for everything from the Supreme Court to the Electoral College as the Trump administration get on with the business of fulfilling its election promises.
Meanwhile, in the UK the Remainers are still trying to stop Brexit and defy the will of the people.
It is abundantly clear that population is a key issue for the vast majority of Australians. They deserve to have their say on this critical issue.
— Rita Panahi is a Herald Sun columnist.
rita.panahi@news.com.au
@ritapanahi
RELATED CONTENT:
US RALLIES AGAINST TRUMP’S MIGRANT POLICY
EU ISSUES FRESH WARNING TO UK OVER BREXIT
Human cost of pandemic goes much further than virus
Whether you are pro or anti-lockdown the grim, unintended consequences of the fixation on coronavirus are undeniable, as other diseases — including cancer and heart disease — go unchecked, and despair from joblessness, poverty and financial stress rises, writes Rita Panahi.
Will buck really stop with Dan after disastrous decisions?
While Daniel Andrews repeats the “we’re all in this together” mantra, the reality is only the private sector is making huge financial sacrifices as he refuses to face up to scrutiny over the hotel quarantine fiasco and contact tracing chaos, writes Rita Panahi.