There were getting to be too many of us

Illustration: Tom Jellett

One silver lining of the pandemic has been its impact on our population growth. Until the coronavirus arrived and international borders were effectively closed, our population was expanding at extremely high rates. We have been adding another Canberra every year.

Compared with other developed economies, Australia’s annual population growth of about 1.5 per cent has put us close to the top of ladder with immigration contributing the lion’s share, two-thirds, to the annual increase. Our population was expected to reach about 30 million by 2028 and almost 50 million by 2066.

The pandemic has changed this, at least in the short term. ­Budget estimates predict a population of just less than 26 million by the end of 2022, down from almost 27 million. Net overseas migration will fall from 154,000 in 2019-20 to minus 72,000 in 2020-21 and minus 22,000 in 2021-22.

With these declines and an assumed fall in fertility, our population should grow by just 0.2 per cent in 2020-21 and 0.4 per cent in 2021-22. Because of its reliance on migration, Victoria’s population is expected to slump most.

But here’s the rub: the NOM for 2023-24 is assumed to bounce back big time to more than 200,000. The government has no intention of turning its back on high migrant intakes to boost the economy artificially and reignite the negative consequences of excessive population growth.

It seems the government still will not respond to the true preferences of the people who vote it in.

Surveys reveal most of us believe the population has been growing too quickly and most want that growth substantially reduced. Just think Newspoll, Lowy, Scanlon Foundation, Australian Population Research Institute — they tell the same story.

Population Minister Alan Tudge at least has conceded the sharp reduction in population growth “does have the benefit of giving us some space to catch up on the infrastructure, and we do need to have that catch-up”. But he added: “Slow population has big economic consequences. If you consider the housing construc­tion industry, which does rely very significantly on population growth to sustain it, and there are hundreds of thousands of people connected to that industry.”

It’s possible Tudge’s position is more nuanced than these comments indicate. But it’s easy to conclude — and this includes government decisions — the Coalition is in thrall to property developers, the construction industry, the higher education sector and the pro-immigration bureaucrats who provide such ­deficient advice.

It’s understandable why the Department of Home Affairs, which includes immigration, would give advice to the effect that a bigger migrant intake is a good thing; the jobs of the staff are dependent on this. Mind you, these bureaucrats are the ones aware of the rorting and gaming of the regulations.

That Treasury is so pro-immigration is harder to understand and it’s a problem from a public policy point of view. There is even a Centre for Population within Treasury to churn out pro-immigration and high-population growth propaganda.

Even those without economics training understand that it is not absolute economic growth that matters in terms of living standards but per capita growth. What we witnessed across the decade or so before COVID-19 was extremely high population growth rooted in high migrant intakes — the NOM has been about 250,000 per year — combined with flatlining per-capita income, low real wage growth and sluggish productivity.

Yet Treasury wants to restart high migrant intakes. It is time the Treasurer and other economic ministers challenged the Treasury to make an unassailable case for this before it is reinstituted. The gains to Australians need to be demonstrated, and not just the gains to the migrants. In any case, gross domestic product is a poor measure of economic wellbeing; urban amen­ity, congestion, social cohesion and environmental management must be taken into account.

No doubt the universities and some other educational outfits geared towards international students have suffered. Universities have laid off staff and there have been job losses elsewhere.

But the vast, unjustified growth in international students up to the onset of COVID-19 shouldn’t be overlooked. The managers of the old sandstone universities, in particular, were behaving like children in lolly shops, adding more and more international students to their enrolments. We were at the point that international students made up close to, and in some cases more than, half of commencing enrolments.

There is a strong case for reducing the numbers of international students in the future, not least to improve the educational experience for domestic students. The federal government is in a position to ensure this happens — caps on international students as a percentage of total enrolments and in certain courses are an option. This measure alone would dampen the number of temporary migrants arriving.

The government is aware of some weaknesses in the immigration system. Reducing the humanitarian intake from 18,750 a year to 13,750 across four years acknowledges the difficulty many refugees have finding work and breaking free from welfare dependence. It’s not a good time to bring in large numbers of refugees given the fiscal costs.

The decision to insist on English proficiency for partners who are issued with visas is an acceptance that too many never actively participate in the labour market. This is a significant limitation of our skilled migration program in which only the job-relevant skills of the primary applicant are ­assessed.

So the government remains committed to large migrant intakes and a big Australia, in direct conflict with the preferences of most Australians. We may be having a short break but it will be business is usual in a few years unless the government of the day changes its mind.

This is the time for a reassessment. Our universities need to develop on the basis of fewer international students and can be stronger for it. Our employers need to become less dependent on temporary workers and step up to the plate to train locals. And Australians need to do jobs they have previously shunned.

There are many upsides. And our cities can grow at a more leisurely pace without being scarred by ugly high-rise developments while retaining some of their original charms.