Both major parties shirk responsibility for migration management

Ever since Kevin Rudd was shouted down for saying he believed in a “big Australia”, no politician of either major party has wanted to take responsibility for long-term migration management.

With net migration now running at around 500,000 over the 12 months to September 2023, the alarm bells are ringing, at least politically. That may bring about a change in approach although the most likely outcome is just more finger-pointing and dog-whistling as we get closer to the next election.

So why won’t politicians commit to a long-term migration management strategy? After all, there are few government policy issues more important to Australia’s long-term future than well-managed migration. Migrants make up around 30 per cent of Australia’s population and around half of us have a parent who was born overseas. These percentages will rise rather than fall.

While politicians have been prepared to accept the net migration assumption in intergenerational reports, these assumptions have been treated by all governments as just something Treasury boffins dream up rather than a long-term target to which the Government will manage migration.

Government between a rock and a hard place on permanent migration program

In its attempt to repair the immigration system chaos caused by the Coalition, the Albanese Government has instead created a new set of challenges to overcome.

Earlier this year, Treasurer Jim Chalmers said Treasury’s net migration forecasts did not reflect either government targets or policy. So they just exist in the ether?

For absolutely no good reason, the terms of reference for the review of the migration system by Martin Parkinson that was commissioned in 2022 explicitly excluded discussion of migration levels.

Part of the problem is that policy in this space is split across a large number of ministers who pursue their own sectional interests without having to abide by an over-arching migration policy framework (perhaps based on the offsetting savings rule governments have used for decades).

This problem was exacerbated by former Treasurer Josh Frydenberg who decided his department should develop net migration forecasts but without any link to a migration management framework. Treasury has limited expertise in this space and it would be the first to admit that.

When asked about net migration forecasts at Senate Estimates some years ago, Home Affairs Secretary Mike Pezzullo said his department had no role in either the development of these or their delivery even though he controlled many of the policy levers. A truly astonishing statement.

The longest-standing policy tension is between education ministers who insist on an ever-bigger overseas student intake and immigration ministers who must manage the consequences. That tension started in the late 1980s and continues to this day. That tension was the major driver of the massive blowout in net migration over the past 12 months.

Another policy tension is with foreign affairs ministers (and prime ministers) who love to announce new bilateral migration arrangements, once again without any regard for the net migration or immigration compliance consequences.

Pressure on Government as net migration yet to peak

Arrivals and departures data for the September quarter of 2023 suggests record net migration has still not peaked.

Under the Coalition Government, former Agriculture Minister David Littleproud insisted on a demand-driven agriculture visa that would have contributed to an even bigger blowout in net migration with appalling consequences for immigration compliance and migrant worker exploitation. Littleproud insisted this visa was some sort of revolutionary reform!

Australia dodged a bullet when the Albanese Government abolished that visa.

Another policy tension is with tourism and regional development ministers who insist on ever more streamlined visa processes for tourists and working holidaymakers but without any reference to a migration management framework.

As we start to face massive skill shortages with an ageing population, new ministers will increasingly dip their oars into migration policy such as the recent Aged Care Labour Agreement developed in conjunction with the Aged Care Minister. Once again, there is no indication of how this will be managed in terms of impact on net migration or immigration compliance risks.

However, the reasons why governments avoid committing to a long-term net migration target and management framework go beyond these policy tensions.

The key one is that any long-term net migration target will be criticised by both business lobby groups who will argue it’s too low and a range of anti-immigration stakeholders who will argue it’s too high.

A long-term net migration target and management framework satisfies no one except the need for good policy and good administration. Managing to a long-term net migration target is difficult and requires extensive discipline from all ministers and the prime minister. It limits the ability of immigration ministers to freelance in the way Opposition Leader Peter Dutton did when he was in charge.

And that is why both major parties should commit to a long-term net migration target and management framework.

Dr Abul Rizvi is an Independent Australia columnist and a former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Immigration. You can follow Abul on Twitter @RizviAbul.