Like a form of cosmic background radiation to our public life, there’s one issue that is always lurking in contemporary political debates: the seeming inability of governments to get things done. Building a national broadband network. Addressing the disadvantage of Indigenous Australians. Delivering effective climate action. Providing sufficient housing supply. Protecting major river systems. Tasks that have proved beyond governments despite, often, huge amounts of money being thrown at the task.
This is the product of decades of neoliberal policy in action, aimed at curbing the role of government. Much of this has been delivered by taking away the tools of governments to accomplish things. We can’t build an NBN, for example, because we privatised the government business we traditionally used to roll out telecommunications infrastructure, and, worse, privatised it as a vertically integrated anti-competitive monster. So to build an NBN we had to build a new government business to do it from the ground up. Or we’ve allowed powerful interests to dictate policy, as in climate policy (well, we don’t have a climate policy currently) or the Murray-Darling.
Now the failures of governments are being used to justify cutting immigration. We haven’t planned and built enough infrastructure, so we need to cut immigration. We haven’t provided enough housing, so we need to cut immigration. Workers can’t get wage rises any more, so we need to cut immigration.
Tony Abbott promised at the start of the year to make cutting immigration his priority for destabilising Malcolm Turnbull throughout the year. He copped a bollocking from ministers like Scott Morrison, Mathias Cormann (one of Australia’s best examples of the benefits of migration — certainly a better one than Tony Abbott) and even Peter Dutton. But since then, the idea has gained traction and credibility. The Australian has jumped on the bandwagon, with former editor Chris Mitchell and the normally neoliberal Judith Sloan calling for cuts to immigration. Usual anti-immigration suspects Dick Smith and Bob Carr (“Malthus of Maroubra” as Christian Kerr memorably christened him) have emerged again. Last night 4 Corners, which only last year was giving a platform to doomsayers to claim the property market was about to crash, offered its take on why we’ve struggled to cope with high immigration.
Amidst it all, the best contribution to the debate was from the Grattan Institute in its recent report on housing affordability, which it found to have been adversely affected by a number of factors, including high immigration coupled with poor state and local government planning:
“Reducing immigration would reduce demand, but it would also reduce economic growth per existing resident. First-best policy is probably to continue with Australia’s demand-driven, relatively high-skill migration, and to increase supply of housing accordingly. But Australia is currently in a world of third-best policy: rapid migration, and restricted supply of housing… If states are not going to improve supply… then the Commonwealth should consider reducing migration as the lesser evil.”
That is, reducing immigration isn’t actually fixing the problem, which is governments that have proven ineffective at meeting community needs. And how long would any “pause” in immigration have to last? Until governments rediscovered competence in infrastructure planning, development regulation and land supply? If they haven’t discovered such skills under the political pressure of rapidly growing populations, why will they suddenly emerge with the pressure off?
It’s a far cry from 1950, when 150,000 people came to an Australia when our population was one-third of its current size, while we built the Snowy Mountains Scheme. And that was when we were undergoing a baby boom. Those babies are now entering retirement at a rate that is going to place serious stresses on the workforce in decades to come. Who’s providing the health and care services they need? The dialogue goes something like this:
“Sorry, but we’ve halted all health professional immigration until local councils and state governments get their infrastructure and housing act together.”
“But we live in a regional town and can’t get any nurses to come and work here, we badly need foreign medical professionals.”
“Bad luck, you’ll have to wear the consequences of people in cities with ‘Fuck Off We’re Full’ bumper stickers.”
Or… governments could re-learn how to provide the most basic services for communities.
Speaking of immigration. I stumbled on this wonderful page via twitter this morning.
Hours of fun, fiddling with the knobs and dials, so you can decide where the eventual population figures should end up. (Highly recommended.)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-13/big-australia-or-small-australia-you-decide-our-population/9470156
Suspect BK will cop another bollocking for this post. Crikey readers (at least the ones who comment) seem to line up pretty much with the Oz’s conservative columnists, cranky grumps like Dick Smith (I won’t have enough room to park my helicopter!) and cynical opportunists like Bob Carr (We’re full, so we don’t have to build anything) on the immigration issue.
In fact consensus seems to have completely crossed the political divide now, with immigration naysayers and doom-mongers coming from the Greens as much as the traditionally anti-immigrant far right. In my neighbourhood – the Greens-voting inner west (where we have two Greens State MPs) all local politicians have long hung up the “We’re Full” placards, many of them unashamably standing under them at anti-development protest meetings. “Go Away – Migrants and newcomers are not wanted here!” is what they are saying.
Sure, our governments do seem incompetent, but even so, the growing pains of a rising population are nothing compared to the reverse. Those complaining should really get out more. Go to Detroit for example, or any other city experiencing the terrible effects of the anti-growth policies they espouse.
BK might get a load of bollocking for writing another article with the same old lines, but that’s what you get when you deliver clickbait.
Growth from unplanned and unlimited immigration is hardly healthy. It’s just a version of a ponzi scheme. When it pops we’ll all get the real bollocking.
People have been doing this “oh noes, we have too many people, however will we cope, no more people!” stuff for thousands of years and it has all worked out OK so far.
The spread of education and modern medicine throughout the world will help naturally check population growth the way it has throughout Western economies.
Wow, that syllogism is so wrong it’s not even stupid.
How is it Arky’s comment stupid? What part of education and improved medicine reducing the populations of Western societies is wrong for you?
Detroit is a straw man. Nobody is advocating reducing the size of our cities, or our population. The argument is about how FAST we should grow.
There are fundamental limits to earths capacity. I’ve no idea if we are near them, but some claim we are.
I would say there is definitely a coherent argument for non-growth – or at least planning for it in the long term future.
I’m aware of at least one absolute physical limit we are on track to hit in 400 years, but that is far longer term than the current debate.
Detroit isn’t a “straw man” Woopwoop. We are constantly being told we have to “re-think our addiction to growth”. You seem to be saying we should go slower, am I right? Then you really do need to look at what happens to communities within capitalist societies when growth slows, stagnates or even declines.
Then you do need to look at Detroit. In any unequal society, it is the poor who suffer most. But its no coincidence that those who propose economic slow down are sitting pretty themselves – like my neighbours in the wealthy Green voting inner west. Perhaps they imagine that can survive the inevitable recession (if not economic collapse and accompanying political turmoil) with their lifestyle and assets intact. They may be in for a nasty surprise…
Detroit *is* a straw man Teddy. What you’re pointing to is poor economic management, not iron laws of the universe, economic or otherwise. There are prosperous countries with slow population growth.
What led to the decline of Detroit wasn’t slowing US immigration.
What’s the connection between slower growth (and again I say, nobody is talking about decline or even stagnation) and inequality?
You present a false dichotomy. The argument is not “maintain current immigration levels” against “becoming Detroit”, but how much immigration is sustainable.
Australia is on track to double its population in the next 45 – 50 years. Anyone supporting an additional 25 million people in this country must seriously address the following questions:
1. Where will these additional millions live?
2. How will they get to work?
3. Where will the water they use come from?
4. Where will the electricity they use come from?
I’m getting pretty fed up with being labelled as conservative/grumpy/racist because people are not cabable of thinking about our population issue beyond mere name calling.
Oh please, we have a vast country.
1: Just the seat of Kennedy, 4 times the size of England, plenty of water and arable land and a population of less than 200,000 (and falling). Take a 300km coastal strip around Australia, drop 100M people in there and you’d still have a very low population density.
2: That amount of population is far more self sustaining in a country of our size in both heavy and agricultural industries.
3: Modern technologies can provide any amount of water we need. Wave, solar and wind can easily power as many desalination plants as we need. Atmospheric water generators can already produce 10,000 litres a day, and large scale (300,000L/day) plants are on the drawing board.
4: Electricity? Surely you’ve at least been reading the papers. Within a decade nobody will be asking this question.
I’m getting pretty fed up with middle aged, non imaginative, set in the past people not capable of thinking past their own intractable mindset into what could be a fantastic future.
Kudos for your realistic optimism and optimistic realism but look around at (y)our compatriots.
Sad. We used to regard ourselves as a young, can do nation. Now even the young seem to have ‘old’ mindsets.
Desal can only be made at the coast.
Even if there are some underpopulated coastal areas, nobody will move there with no jobs. All over the world, people are moving to big cities.
And we have these things called pipelines. They and windmill/solar pumps can be installed and paid off over their lifetime of a hundred years or more. Remember? The way we used to fund large projects!
This is the second article I’ve read today on the Australian immigration debate that makes no mention at all of the environmental impact of the population, and treats the question as a purely economic issue. Surely, though, the human carrying capacity of the continent is a critical parameter in the overall discussion? How can it be ignored?
There’s another discussion that no-one seems to be having, as well. Now that humans have the ability to transform the planet into whatever living environment we want, what kind of planet do we want to live on? That discussion then flows down to the kind of country we want Australia to become; how we fit into the overall global picture; and how immigration fits into both.
Good article BK – that is really the nub of the problem.
40 years of neoliberalism has brought us to the sorry state where governments just can’t get important things done…the dud of an NBN Turnbull has given us is the classic example.
I have the ability to recognise two problems at once!
Failure to build infrastructure is a problem.
Too much immigration is a problem.
They need not be connected.
I have yet to make up my mind of the issue. I confess to needing to do a lot more research.
That said, if Tony Abbott is for something, I am against it by sheer and blind instinct.