Population mood to slow migrant intake a chance for Coalition strength on immigration policy
The minute a Liberal politician makes the case for a lower rate of immigration, another one casts doubt on the argument by making an emotional case for appreciating the role of migrants.
Andrew Hastie felt he was being squeezed in his rightful role in setting immigration policy.
Sussan Ley had put Paul Scarr, the unknown and inexperienced opposition immigration spokesman, which ranks below home affairs, in charge.
Scarr claims immigration policy must be based on evidence, but any discussion “must not seek to inflame emotion”.
Weirdly, Scarr regards the term “mass migration” as divisive.
James Paterson then talked about the “virtual consensus on policy problems – we all agree immigration is too high”. According to him, the post-Covid immigration program has been “unplanned, uncontrolled and too high”.
Predictably, former Liberal immigration minister Philip Ruddock sprang into print. “Amid these tensions, there are some who wish to politicise the debate by suggesting Australians have a fear of becoming strangers in their own country. We, as a nation, must resist this flawed sentiment.” He went on: “We have always been, in truth, a nation of others. It is this diversity, not homogeneity, that has given us our strength.”
Angus Taylor responded by declaring “migration has enriched Australia, but we need to lower the rate of immigration and refocus on newcomers who can make strong economic contributions and adopt our values”. In other words, immigration policy has veered seriously off track and we need a reset.
The pattern is clear: the conservative wing of the party is keen to put the case for a lower migrant intake and reform the main settings. The moderates don’t want to go there and are keen to appease the forceful interests – think universities, property developers, businesses, some ethnic groups.
The unfortunate backdrop to this division is that an agreed immigration policy had been reached by the Coalition leading up to the last election.
The three key elements were: a reduction of the annual permanent migrant intake to 140,000 from the current figure of 190,000; a reduction of 30,0000 international student visas, particularly targeted at the sandstone Go8 universities; and a cut to the humanitarian intake of 20,000 places, taking the annual total back to 13,750. A review of the temporary graduate visa program was proposed, as well as tightening the enforcement of visa conditions.
The problem was not the policy, but the failure to forcefully articulate its broad message. We know from repeated surveys that a growing chunk of the population wants to see the migrant intake cut, linking excess immigration to housing affordability and pressure on resources.
A recent survey undertaken for The Sydney Morning Herald found that 49 per cent of Australians believe immigration is too high, which is up from 33 per cent in the previous year.
Instead of making immigration policy one of its strengths during the election campaign, the Coalition’s leadership team, including the relevant shadow minister, went to water. It got to the point some Liberal politicians were almost apologising for the policy.
Let me just take up Ruddock’s contribution to the debate. He was the immigration minister between 1996 and 2003. There have been dramatic changes to the program since then. For starters, there were relatively few temporary migrants. Net overseas migration, which measures the difference between long-term arrivals and long-term departures, averaged less than 100,000 per year during Ruddock’s tenure. (The latest figure is over 300,000, having peaked above 500,000) Those born in Britain were the main source country.
The changes that have occurred since have been immense, creating pressures that, while foreseeable, were largely ignored by both sides of politics. The growth in international student numbers has been massive – there are nearly one million international student visa holders in the country, including secondary visa holders and those on temporary graduate visas. Australia has one of the highest percentages of international student enrolments in the world. Currently, 3.5 per cent of Australian residents were born in England; 3.4 per cent in India; and 2.6 per cent in China. In 2014, there were 411,000 Indians living in Australia. On the most recent figures, there are now 916,000. Historically, this is one of the steepest rises in the numbers coming from a single country in such a short period of time.
The description of Australia as one of the most successful multicultural countries in the world has always been based on idealistic dreaming rather than reality. The recent ongoing pro-Palestine protests and the rise of anti-Semitism have burst that bubble, along with other developments.
Nowadays, it is quite common for English not to be spoken in the homes of migrants. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, nearly a quarter of the population reported speaking a language other than English at home in 2021. Some 900,000 people reported not speaking English well.
There is a clustering of migrant groups, and close contact with family and friends in home countries is maintained through WhatsApp and WeChat. Many migrants regularly travel back and forth to their home countries. It’s not altogether surprising that the term, Hotel Australia, has sprung up to replace Team Australia.
The Liberal Party needs to sort out this issue quickly. It is the responsibility of governments to do what is in the best interests of all Australians, not just those who have arrived from elsewhere. Self-interested lobby groups should be largely ignored.
No one is arguing for a complete pause in the migrant intake. But it’s high time the Coalition articulated its stance on immigration and contrast its policy with Labor’s opportunistic and adaptable settings focused on large migrant intakes and appeasing interest groups.
More Coverage
Why DFAT is wrong to dismiss Yamagami’s words
Why does the Coalition find itself incapable of developing and communicating a sensible immigration policy? The weakness on this front has become very apparent in recent weeks. The division is obvious.