Three amigos’ population policy just doesn’t add up

Minister for Cities, Urban Infrastructure and Population Alan Tudge, Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs David Coleman. Picture: AAP

Do you want the good news or the bad news first? Let me give you the good news: the government has a population policy. The bad news: it’s a lousy one.

Before I comment on the policy, here’s a few facts.

Firstly, notwithstanding the annual permanent migrant intake being set at 190,000, in the last two (financial) years, the annual intake has been about 160,000. So setting the annual cap for the next four financial years at 160,000 will make no notable difference to solving the congestion and other population pressures that Melburnians, Sydneysiders and those living in southeast Queensland live with.

Secondly, the permanent intake is just one part of the story and the government has expanded the options for temporary entry, for instance, 15,000 temporary grandparent visas become available from this year.

The key here is Net Overseas Migration — the difference between arrivals and departures where migrants have resided here for 12 months out of 16. In the decade ending 2005, the average annual NOM was 105,000.

In subsequent years, the NOM has averaged over 220,000. The government has no intention of reducing the NOM.

Today’s three amigos — Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Population Minister Alan Tudge, and Immigration Minister David Coleman — said the population challenge was not about the numbers but the distribution of population growth. Pull the other one.

Pushing 23,000 new migrants out to regional areas (which bizarrely includes Adelaide) will make no noticeable difference. These regional conscription schemes also send the wrong messages to the would-be migrants that it is punishment to go to these regions.

Tudge likes to quote a figure that 80 per cent stay in the regions after five years. Let’s assume he’s right, which means 18,400 migrants will end up in regional areas each year.

This is working on the wrong side of the decimal point given the population is increasing by more than 400,000 per year.

The three amigos were also weak when it comes to economics. Using dodgy Treasury modelling, an argument was put that immigration has contributed mightily to productivity growth, not just absolute GDP growth.

This result is based on the belief that skilled migrants are younger with higher labour force participation rates than Australian-born residents. Trouble with this analysis is that at the very time immigrant numbers have soared, the rate of productivity growth has shrunk. Sure, correlation does not imply causation, but the argument looks weak.

As for Morrison’s howler that any migrant intake under 160,000 would worsen the budget position is basically made up. After all, fewer migrants means reduced demand for services such as schools and hospitals, even if they are largely funded by the states and territories.

If you want to understand how this trio landed on what is a pathetic attempt at a population policy, you have to understand consultation is code for the various interest groups (think big business, industry associations, mendicant state governments, certain ethnic groups, universities) setting out what they require and the government obliging.