Population pulls parties in different directions
Tony Burke’s appointment as Population Minister, charged with the task of taking 12 months to produce a population strategy, is a small but neat demonstration of the longer-term realities for both sides of politics.
Early this year I suggested that population might be a politically-productive little story for the Coalition: play on people’s latent, or frequently not-so-latent, resistance to high immigration, cloak it in the language of sustainability – talk about infrastructure, congestion, planning and so on – and give even the high-minded a credible reason to feel under siege from foreigners. Throw in some lines about incompetent state Labor governments, link it to border security to create a general impression that Labor isn’t in control of Australia’s borders, and you’re off to the races.
Curiously, the Coalition has failed to make any headway on the issue despite a big spike in the number of asylum seekers arriving in boats and the efforts of the right-wing press to get some of the old Tampa-era xenophobia going. That might be partly because Scott Morrison, who replaced the supposedly poor-performing Sharman Stone as shadow minister, puts out lots of press releases and is a Press Gallery favourite but seems to lack cut-through. It might be because Australians have got over their obsessions with the idea of seaborne invasions.
It may also be that, as it is on a number of issues, the Coalition is hopelessly conflicted, with only a thin veneer of unity. For a couple of months they managed to give the impression of marching in lockstep to Tony Abbott’s ideological soundtrack (think Rocky), but that was never going to last. If something as innocuous as Earth Hour can expose the Liberals as childishly divided between the Greg Hunts and the Dennis Jensens and Corey Bernardis, then you know there’s a whole lot of internal bickering about to explode once things start to go wrong, as they have in the last fortnight.
And it’s not just the simplistic division between conservatives and moderates, nor Barnaby Joyce’s amazing ability to be at odds with everyone in the Coalition, including himself. As Guy Rundle has observed elsewhere on this site, there’s now a genuine ideological confusion in conservative ranks. Tony Abbott himself best demonstrates it with his mix of extreme social conservatism – I mean FFS, who is seriously a monarchist any more? – and big-government interventionism. Not even his own side believes Abbott’s rhetoric about how committed he is to small government and lower taxes, not merely because his first two and so far only policies have been all about bigger government, more spending and tax rises, but because they knew him during the Howard years, and they knew the man he is slavishly trying to copy. This clashes directly with the party’s economic and social liberals – not always one and the same – and the party’s business base.
The Coalition’s position on population will be tugged in similar directions. There will remain strong support for high immigration – immigration of the levels seen during the Howard years – for a variety of reasons: reflexive support for the idea of a “Big Australia”; business support for high immigration both to stimulate growth and to curb wage demands from unions in a tight labour market, and perhaps even a genuine liberal commitment to free movement of peoples. But there’ll be party reactionaries like the appalling Kevin Andrews, who has already called for an 85% cut to immigration, keen to exploit community xenophobia, and perhaps even green-minded Liberals who share the environmental movement’s conviction that humans are a particularly toxic form of pollution. And then there’s Barnaby Joyce, of course, who’s convinced we won’t be able to feed 20 million people in a few years’ time let alone 36 million.
That may be why the Coalition’s response to Burke’s appointment yesterday was a repeated effort to ignore the entire issue of population policy in favour of claiming too many boat people were coming.
On the other side, Labor has read the tea leaves on population and quickly and professionally put together a decent facsimile of action. The Prime Minister can now say that he has appointed the first Population Minister. A review is under way, giving Rudd an excuse to duck the issue between now and the election, but also providing the basis for a response to the Little Australianists like Dick Smith whenever they demand action to curb the plague of people coming here and eating our food.
Bear in mind Labor’s own heritage on immigration is mixed. The Parliamentary party has long been a “big Australia” supporter, from the days of Calwell through to its recent and occasionally continuing history of ethnic branch-stacking. But trade unions have been traditional opponents of high immigration, for exactly the reason business supports it, and the urban Left fringes of the party will lean to the environmentalist view that there’s very much such a thing as too many people.
In truth yesterday’s appointment is a slightly eccentric decision, because a population strategy must be part and parcel of the work the Government is undertaking through the COAG process in both capital city infrastructure planning and housing supply issues. Coming at this late stage suggests the Government continues to feel it has to demonstrate that it has Australia’s borders under control – a concern that prompted changes to student visas and some National Security State theatrics back in early February.
It will also brings Tony Burke closer to the action. Burke is one of the Government’s best and most aggressive performers in Parliament, but he is confined to Agriculture, sidelining him much of the time. Now he will have more of a roving commission in Question Time.










Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.
Thanks for this article, Bernard. I too can’t see how any major party could reconcile their existing positions (and deliberate non-positions) into anything resembling a “Population Policy”. Various spokespeople seem to try to focus on widely different aspects of demographics depending on their core interests – absolute numbers, growth rates, immigration vs natural increase, distribution, impacts on the natural environment, “lifestyle”, infrastructure, urban form/density and issues of economic efficiency as it relates to scale.
To deal objectively and intelligently with all those in a single package seems to me to be well beyond the proven capacity of our policy processes. The field is certainly ripe for populism and political game playing – as we’ve seen already with the Opposition trying to put border security at the centre of their position.
I can’t say I find much comfort in the Government’s announcement. It seems to be already pointing towards decentralising growth as the preferred strategy before there’s even been any real analysis.
Bernard Keane understands the political maneuvring around the population problem very well, but he doesn’t understand the problem itself. Rudd admitted that population might be a problem for the same reason that Anna Bligh recently took to admitting that it is. As she told the Property Council recently, “The costs of population growth are so obvious, so tangible” to ordinary people that it is pointless to deny them.
Keane forgets that the Australian Academy of Science has warned that 23 million was Australia’s safe limit, and this was also the thrust of the cross-parliamentary enquiry that Barry Jones chaired. Both these warning came when oil was still only a few dollars a barrel, and Peak Oil was just a theory. And it was not some nutter but Tim Flannery who warned that aAustralia’s long term carrying capacity might be less than its present population.
If Keane understood more of the risks of population growth he might avoid glib nonsense like “green-minded Liberals who share the environmental movement’s conviction that humans are a particularly toxic form of pollution” and silly labels like “little Australianists”. But,like many politicians, the thing he best understands is the electoral costs of a policy. The early March poll by Essential Research showed that 75% of Australians agreed and only 19% disagreed that “We just don’t have the infrastructure and services to manage more population growth.” That’s why Rudd had to seem to be doing someithing, lest the Opposition might throw off its Big End of Town blinkers and pick up the votes of those indignant at how their cities are being transformed.
I really like Bernard Keane’s writing, it’s just a pity that on this issue he consistently lets his own opinions seep through far too much.
Bernard, it’s not just the Opposition that is hopelessly conflicted on population issues. How about a Government that on the one hand wants to lower Australia’s carbon emissions, yet on the other says we need to spend $100 billion in the next decade to build (coal fired) power stations to meet ‘increased demand’?. Even in these strange days, that’s a lot of moolah, and it sure ‘aint going to come from domestic sources – all the local capital is pointlessly tied up in our domestic property market. There goes the foreign debt balloon.
About the only part of the population conundrum you seem to get is that it’s hellishly complicated. But I wonder if you could tell me one thing that gets better with a massive and rapid increase in Australia’s population? And don’t give me that ‘ageing Australia’ nonsense. Even Treasury knows that immigration is pretty dammed useless at dealing with that. How about the 2.5 million Australians who are poorly trained and and barely literate. A shocking waste of our own resources.
You need to think deeper and wider about this subject and stop trying to distract with the dog whistle. It’s not about selfishness, racism or uber-environmentalism. It’s about what makes sense for us AND the rest of the world. What can Australia do most responsibly?- continue to steal Bangladeshi doctors or find ways of growing and exporting more food? “Wilful’ has good advice for you— start thinking outside your own claustrophobic box.
Here is a reality check. No matter how many population policies we have we cannot keep the hordes out.
The population will grow here as well as every corner of the world unless we want to start human culling and the notion that we greedy arseholes get to keep this planet just for ourselves is a delusion of grandeur on a grand scale.
They once said we couldn’t afford anymore than 7 million, we are treble that now.
We don’t own it folks, it ain’t ours. We just live on it for our three score and 10.
Population is the issue for Australia. It plays to the environment, infrastructure, economic growth, defence capability and who is going to wipe my arse when I am in a nursing home 50 years from now.
The coalition’s policy making record in opposition under Tony has been so crap that there is no way they can come up with something coherent.
Having said that. The ALP will appoint a Minister, commision a report, consult, consider the reports findings and wait for the media cycle to pass.
And, I reckon Scott Morrison will be the next Opposition Leader after the election.
(You heard it here first).
Furthermore, Burkes promotion is a snub for Albanese. Albo had recently launched a “our cities are stuffed” report, which I imagined would have been followed up by some sort of green infrastructure grants to soften the impacts of overdevelopment in our cities.
I reckon Burke will now get to put together a big cash splash for urban environmental management.
Albo doesnt exactly get any cut through beyond parliament. Burke is a much better performer.
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.