DAVID SPEERS:
Welcome to PM Agenda. For more than 50 years, immigration has been one of the most divisive issues in Australian politics. Last century, the debate was about which countries we should take immigrants from. Last decade, the argument was about whether we should take refugees who arrive by boat. And while that argument is still clearly under way the more interesting questions now seems to be how big Australia's population should be. On Saturday the Prime Minister announced that he would be appointing Australia's first Population Minister, given the task of drawing out the population strategy over the next 12 months.
It follows the Treasury forecast suggesting Australia's population would grow from 22 to 36 million by 2050 and criticism of Kevin Rudd that he hasn't really said if this is a good thing or not and whether in fact it should be avoided.
Given the difficult task of taking on this new portfolio and drawing up this population strategy is Tony Burke. He will add this to his duties as the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Tony Burke joins me now. Minister, thanks for joining us.
TONY BURKE:
Good to be here David.
SPEERS:
Now let me start by asking you, do you support the notion of a population of 36 million in Australia?
BURKE:
That figure is a projection, and nothing more than a projection. The Government doesn't have a target figure. Anything on population has to be tailored to the needs of the nation.
SPEERS:
But everyone else has a view on whether this is a good thing or not, surely the Government cant just sit on the fence.
BURKE:
Well here is the catch with the debate so far. One of the things that I am trying to get right from the beginning in this portfolio is to get the next layer of detail. The population needs are different in different parts of the country.
When the person in Western Australia tells you they are crying out for a workforce and they can't find anyone, they are telling the truth. And when someone caught in traffic on the east coast in a major city says this is the last thing we need with current infrastructure, they are telling the truth too.
It is not a question of a total figure for the nation. We need to determine the drivers of whether it is in our national interest to have more people and whether we have got significant capacity constraints.
David Speers:
But the Government can control to an extent the size of the population and the Prime Minister did talk in positive terms about his vision for a big Australia. He hasn't spoken about it as much since the Coalition and the Greens have started attacking this idea of a 36 million population. So, surely the Government will eventually have to take a position on whether 36 million is a good figure or a bad figure.
BURKE:
You will be able to project forward in different ways. But the first question is, where did the 36 million come from? The Intergenerational Report said, here are the immigration figures from the last 40 years and the natural growth rate, so let's project them for the next 40 years at a slightly lower rate and where do we land? That's all that figure is. It is where we would get to if we change nothing.
We also need to remember that even if all immigration stopped tomorrow, one third of our growth is natural increase. So the concept of us being a bigger nation and a more populated nation is happening, no matter what we do with immigration.
In the population discussion we need to get beyond just seeing this as an immigration issue. It affects jobs, the environment, our capacity with water and our transport infrastructure. A whole range of issues are woven together. Sometimes they are dealt with as an urban planning issue, but throughout our nation's history we have never looked at the drivers and the pressures and found a way of coordinating them.
SPEERS:
As you identify, migration is one of the key drivers here. The net migration last year was 285,000 – that was more than 100,000 over the average forecast that you would have to have to get that 36 million. It does look like we are already going to exceed that 26 million.
BURKE:
I think you will find the figures for last year include a whole lot of Australians returning home which is why you have the net figure in that fashion. When you go down to your skilled migration program, humanitarian programs, family programs, the figures have been the same as they were under the previous Government - which was much higher than under the Hawke/Keating Government. The figures at the moment have been the same as they were under the Howard Government. As a result of the global recession, there was a significant number of Australians returning from overseas. That may have had an impact together with increased numbers of overseas students.
SPEERS:
Well, one of your colleagues, Kelvin Thompson – Labor MP – he has written about population a lot. He has already put out a 14 point population plan. Now he is suggesting cutting the skilled migration intake by another 25,000, boosting the refugee intake slightly to 20,000 and keeping the overall migration each year to only 70,000 people. He said that would deliver a population of only 26 million by 2050, rather than 36 million. What's wrong with that plan?
BURKE:
The challenge with all of these plans is if you only look from a whole of Australia perspective, you don't necessarily get to the problem. That plan is as good or as bad as it helps the employer in Western Australia, or it takes away from the congestion in the cities on the east coast. This is the level of consultation and detail that I believe Australia should be able to get down to.
In the portfolio that I have carried over the last two and a half years – and which I will retain – Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, I hear chronic stories of labour shortages. The overall immigration figures haven't tended to help them because people still haven't chosen where they will settle, or where they will work. If we can get this level of detail right, this means that we can get our population working where the nation needs it to work and we can do some planning with infrastructure that arguably as a nation we have been pretty poor at in the past.
SPEERS:
State and federal governments for years have talked about trying to encourage migrants to settle in the regional areas where the work is needed, where the population base is needed, how do you do it though? It is a lot easier to say than do, isn't it?
BURKE:
That's right, and part of the job developing the strategy over the next 12 months is to look at all the different levers. Some will be at the Commonwealth level, some at state and some at the local level. In the scenario you painted just then, you move between all levels of government. The federal level has control over immigration, the state is responsible for infrastructure and local government is responsible for urban planning. To find a way of integrating all of this is a mammoth task and one that we have never done before. It is hard to see it as anything other than in the national interest.
SPEERS:
So the strategy that you will draw up will look at ways to do that? Ways to actually deliver migrants to areas where they are needed like in the mining boom states, Western Australia and Queensland?
BURKE:
Let's remember we are not only talking about immigration. A big part of the challenge in south-east Queensland at the moment has been immigration, but from other parts of Australia. People moving to the south-east corner and infrastructure not necessarily being able to keep up with the pace. It has been a big pressure on the Queensland government and on the Queensland economy. It is a level of planning that goes beyond the immigration program. That is exactly what the population debate has to be about.
SPEERS:
Will it be specific in saying - Sydney - your home town, and when you talk about people sitting in traffic, the last thing those people would say they need – Sydney can cope with this many people. South-east Queensland can cope with this many people. Western Australia can cope with this many people. Is that what we can expect from this plan?
BURKE:
I am too early in the role to provide that level of detail as to how the strategy ends up being drawn up. My first briefing with Treasury is tomorrow morning. I envisage we will be able to look at areas and make the first assessment on what are the needs of the population here? Do we need more people and what challenges do we have? And if an area is growing and it is absolutely in the economic interests of Australia to say we need a particular sort of workforce, we have the question how much do you rely on movement within Australia and how much do you rely on immigration? Then you need to look at infrastructure needs. Sometimes, particularly in issues like water, even if you want to put the infrastructure in place sometimes it can be extraordinarily difficult.
SPEERS:
Well this is the thing, the Prime Minister, said when announcing this on Saturday said that your early priorities are to consider the positive impact of population growth will have on the economy. Why aren't those negative impacts on water, on the environment, on infrastructure – why aren't they an early priority for you?
BURKE:
Well, they were mentioned in the same media conference…
SPEERS:
… but not as an early priority.
BURKE:
We have significant demands from business to be mindful of. In terms of consultation I am not going to shut the door on particular areas of interest, that people want to raise with me.
SPEERS:
Is the aim here to get a positive spin of population growth rather than a negative spin?
BURKE:
The aim is to get it right. This issue has always been viewed as one to be left in the too-hard basket and somehow it will sort itself out. If you see the chronic labour shortages in some parts of the country and the gridlock in other parts I don't think anyone can argue we have managed to get it right.
SPEERS:
Why do we need to wait 12 months for this plan? Twelve months is of course well after the election, why can't voters see this plan in the next few months to have an idea of whether they like it or not?
BURKE:
For a portfolio that has never existed before it is daunting to be told there is only 12 months to get the strategy in place. I would be concerned if people were saying this is something we want to rush out the door. We are talking about an area of policy that Australia has never properly engaged in at a government level. At the community level it has been the subject of conversations around barbecues for as long as anyone can remember, with people saying, 'Why don't governments try and bring all this together?'
Well, we are determined to do it, and I think the timeline of 12 months to get the strategy together is about one thing and one thing only –trying to ensure we come up with a strategy that serves the interests…
SPEERS:
If this is such a big job and is going to take so long, why not a full time Minister on this? Why tack it onto your existing portfolios?
BURKE:
The PM made the decision that he wanted it to be at a Cabinet level. Given that it deals with so many different areas of public policy, I think there is no doubt it will be important to have someone already sitting around the Cabinet table, able to engage in every relevant discussion when it comes up.
SPEERS:
What about border protection? The Coalition as you know are saying you can't trust this Government to develop a population plan if they can't protect our borders. Acknowledging that illegal immigration makes up only a small part of all migration, but Scott Morrison argues that Australians do believe strongly that we should be able to control who comes here. That we should have an orderly process, a generous but orderly process where does border protection fit into your strategy?
BURKE:
The total number of people coming as refugees, under the previous government was 13,000. That figure this year will be 13,000. There is a different immigration debate, which is about trying to make sure that people come in an orderly way and try to discourage, in every way that we can, people putting their lives at risk on the high seas in those boats. The policy objective is there.
But to claim that it is somehow part of population policy when the population figure for Australia is unchanged and the immigration figures of that program completely identical to those under the previous government – I think Scott [Morrison] is pushing the envelope on that a bit.
SPEERS:
And just finally, Tony Burke; the Coalition and the Greens are going to oppose the notion of 36million population in Australia whether the Government says it is a good thing or not, you are saying that it is inevitable based on current….
BURKE:
If we changed nothing that is where we would land. What we need to do now is to look at the needs of the nation and work out which levers we want to use. Immigration is one among the many public policy levers available.
SPEERS:
If the Opposition parties are opposed to 36 million, does that make your job harder?
BURKE:
I would send one note of caution to the Opposition – and Scott Morrison is in the identical job that I had in Opposition – on these sorts of issues, we always offered bipartisan support. The work I have been given takes 12 months. There is a chance that mid-way through this work someone from the other side of politics will take over the job. I just hope that they commit to continuing the work that I will have already started.
SPEERS:
Tony Burke, thank you.
BURKE:
Thank you David.