If there is one thing politicians should have learnt in the last three years, it is that Australians expect them to manage long-term net migration and thus our rate of population growth.

That might seem like a statement of the obvious but neither the Coalition Government (prior to COVID when international borders were closed) nor the Labor Government have been prepared to determine a long-term net migration target; to publicly explain the rationale underlying that target; and to put in place an administrative framework with a single responsible minister to manage things in order to reach that target.

Morrison’s population plan

In March 2019, Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Acting Immigration Minister Alan Tudge issued a document grandly titled A Plan for Australia’s Future Population that:

• re-confirmed the cut to the permanent migration program that Peter Dutton had already implemented in 2017-18 (without cabinet agreement); and
• increased allocation of places to regional visas after Morrison himself had initiated a decline in use of these visas when he had been immigration minister.

When I heard about the document, I rushed to read it, thinking this may be an extraordinary turning point in the way we manage immigration policy. But, as with most things Morrison, it was all marketing and little substance. The plan was apparently about “busting congestion” but it was a plan for Australia’s future population that did not include any forecast for:

• Australia’s population size, growth rate or age structure; or
• net overseas migration or the composition of net overseas migration; or
• our future fertility rate or life expectancy.

In other words, the document had nothing to do with Australia’s future population.

Two months later, in May 2019, then treasurer Josh Frydenberg issued his “Back in Black” budget which forecast Australia’s population growing at a phenomenal rate through net overseas migration of around 270,000 per annum over four years and a fertility rate of 1.9 births per woman. Australia’s population was forecast to grow from just more than 25 million at the end of 2018 to just under 27 million at the end of 2022.

In absolute terms, it would have been the largest population growth over four years since the late 1960s. Due to the Morrison/Dutton cut to the permanent migration program, Frydenberg’s net migration forecast would have had to be delivered through a boom in overseas students, working holidaymakers and other temporary entrants.

If it had been delivered, we would today have a population around a million larger than we actually do (our population is lower mainly due to COVID). Our population was projected to hit 27 million in early 2022, but actually did not hit that level until early 2023.

How that was going to “bust congestion” was never explained. What the current housing crisis would look like with a million more people and no housing plan is also a mystery.

Labor’s migration strategy

Early in its term of office, the Labor Government commissioned Martin Parkinson to undertake a review of Australia’s migration system. For what was claimed to be a comprehensive review, its terms of reference were surprisingly silent on immigration levels and the effect of those on population size and composition. Any meaningful migration strategy must start with immigration levels that are to be targeted.

Despite having to work within that constraint, Parkinson said in his review:

“Our approach to migration planning hasn’t properly accounted for the impact of large and uncapped temporary migration on infrastructure. We need a long-term horizon that supports stable and predictable population growth and allows more effective planning of infrastructure, housing and services to meet the needs of all Australian residents”.

His sixth recommendation was:

“Plan migration based on net overseas migration (which accounts for both permanent and temporary residents), rather than simply relying on permanent migration caps."

His second recommendation was:

“Ensure a single area of government, with deep expertise, is charged with stewarding the migration system, with all visa products to be designed and delivered by that department."

There is little evidence the government took on board these recommendations. In its press release on a Migration Strategy responding to Parkinson’s report, the government appears to have made a last-minute statement that:

“The final piece of the puzzle is bringing migration back down to sustainable, normal levels. Treasury forecasts show migration is expected to decline substantially over the next financial year."

But the government gave no explanation of what a sustainable or normal level of migration is, and why. It continues to treat the net migration forecasts published in the budget as being owned by Treasury and not the government. It has said little about how the massive student and temporary entrant departures underlying the Treasury forecasts will be realised.

Importantly, we still do not have a single minister responsible for both net migration forecasting and delivery. We have a multitude of ministers who dip their toes into this space. No minister is responsible for net migration outcomes.

Coalition’s current position

While Dutton indicated in 2024 that he would reduce net migration to 160,000, he has now walked that back and says he will give us his actual target “in due course”. In recent months, whenever he is asked about net migration, he deflects to his proposed cut to the permanent migration program, which in all likelihood will also not be delivered and would do little to reduce net migration. It is quite possible that Dutton will not release either a target for net migration or any details on how he will deliver his permanent migration program cuts ahead of the election.

What should Australians expect in a population plan?

While politicians have shied away from discussing long-term population, particularly a long-term target for net migration, we desperately need a population plan to enable better planning for our future by governments at all levels, and businesses. It would need to appoint a single minister responsible for the net migration aspect of that plan. That must be the immigration minister and not the treasurer as the treasurer does not control visa delivery.

Yes, it is not easy to hit a net migration target, but it is possible to get within plus or minus 10,000 of a net migration target if the government is committed to do so.

The government would need to explain the rationale for the proposed long-term forecast of population and net migration. It would need to explain why the proposed plan would maximise the economic, social and humanitarian benefits to Australia. It would need to explain the implications of that plan for productivity and innovation. Also the implications for industries such as international education, tourism, health and ageing, house building as well as implications for infrastructure, housing, regional development, the environment and service delivery.

Almost irrespective of any practical level of net migration the plan uses, the government would quickly be criticised for being in favour of a “big Australia”. It is in this context that government needs to explain to Australians the relationship between the level of net migration, the rate of population ageing and the point at which deaths begin to exceed births.

Australian Governments have avoided developing such a plan because they fear no-one will agree to that plan and its forecast of net migration. It would require a brave prime minister. But it would be the right thing to do. Good policy can sometimes be good politics.