In this interview, Daniel Wild appeared on FiveAA Mornings to discuss the IPA’s research on immigration.
All media appearances posted onto the IPA website are directly related to the promotion and dissemination of IPA research.
Below is a transcript of the interview.
Matthew Pantelis:
Let’s Talk migration, and a lot of you will agree migration is exceedingly high and certainly has been for the last few years. The Institute of Public Affairs has today put out some figures, some stats on monthly net overseas migration by government since 1983. So when the Hawke-Keating governments were in office between ’83 and ’96, we had an average net migration of 8,000 back in those monthly. All right, during the Howard years, ’96 to 2007, 10,000 per month, the Rudd-Gillard governments around 17, 18,000 per month. The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government migration had risen to 20,000 per month. And over the last couple of years of the Albanese government migration stands at 45,000 per month. That’s pretty high.
Daniel Wild, Deputy Executive Director Institute of Public Affairs. Daniel, good morning.
Daniel Wild:
Good morning, Matthew.
Matthew Pantelis:
That is quite a few people coming in. Why is the government so driven with this migration number?
Daniel Wild:
Well, that’s right. Look, the primary reason they’re driven by the big migration intake is to prop up the economy. As you’d know, if you bring more people into your economy, the size of your economy will get bigger, so the headline GDP figure will get bigger. But the problem there is the per capita figure is actually going backwards, which is a better measure of living standards. We’ve had five consecutive quarters of negative per capita economic growth, which is the longest decline we’ve had on record, and those records go back to 1972. So the economy will get bigger as you bring in more people, but the slice of the pie that everybody’s getting is unfortunately going backwards.
Matthew Pantelis:
So, okay, too many people, we’ve talked before and certainly on the programme today, we were talking housing about an hour ago, and just the fact that demand far outstrips supply, and that’s just one aspect of this, isn’t it?
Daniel Wild:
It is. You’ve hit the nail on the head. It’s a supply and demand issue. In terms of South Australia, for example, the current intake is about 250% higher than it is pre-Covid, so it’s about 30,000 net intake over the last year, pre-Covid it was about 11 or 12,000. And the problem here is, I’m not in any way, shape, or form placing the blame on the migrants themselves who want to come to Australia and want to come to South Australia because it’s such a great place and they want a better life, but it’s a lack of planning.
You mentioned housing, but you’ve also got other social services like the hospital ramping problem where people have been waiting 12 and a half hours in a car park because of the ramping issues, or challenges that parents have of getting their children into the local childcare facilities, or the local swimming lessons or whatever it might be. And the issue here is that Adelaide is really known for its livability and the quality of life. Now if you’ve got a migration programme that is unplanned, which is currently the case, then that livability is being put at risk, and that’s exactly what’s happening.
Matthew Pantelis:
How do we compare to the rest of the world?
Daniel Wild:
Well, the migration intake is very high when you look at the share of the population that is actually born overseas. So in Australia, about 31% of our population is born overseas. That compares to about 29% in New Zealand, then it drops down to 20% in Canada and just 15 in the U.S. So we have a massive migration intake by that measure, the biggest thing in the anglosphere of comparable countries, and again, I completely understand why so many people want to come here, and in many ways, it’s a testament to what a great country we are.
But there’s really three things that need to be satisfied to make sure migration works in our national interest. The first is that it has to be planned for. You need to have the social services in place before people arrive, not after. Secondly, it needs to have the consent of the community. Unfortunately, there’s not been any meaningful debate from the political class on this issue. And thirdly, it has to be targeted. You need to target the migration intake towards those areas where we have a skill shortage, and also making sure that we have the right social cohesion policies in place. You’ve seen the issues in Sydney and Melbourne. Fortunately in Adelaide, the disintegration of social fabric hasn’t happened to the same extent, but that can’t be taken for granted.
Matthew Pantelis:
Yeah, indeed. Migration currently at 31%, as you say, so would we have reached that sort of figure back in the days after World War II, for instance, where we opened the doors to migrants from Europe who came out and Ten Pound Poms included in that, but a lot of people coming to Australia in those days, would we have been as high as that then, or even higher, maybe?
Daniel Wild:
Well, that’s a good question. I don’t have that data that goes back that far, but certainly over the last, since the seventies, it’s the highest it’s been.
I think the comparison with the immediate post World War II period is, I think, incredibly interesting because basically from 1949 onwards, we had a migration policy that became much more open to the world, and I think most people would look back and say that, that was overwhelmingly successful. And we have to look at, well why did that work? It didn’t work all the time, but it worked mostly, and I think there’s a few reasons. Firstly is we had housing, people could get into a house and that meant they could own their own home, raise a family, put down roots in the community. Secondly, there was a lot of jobs available. This was a time of massive manufacturing and industrial expansion, including across South Australia. So I think one of the issues you have now is those conditions aren’t in place in the same way that they were back then. And that’s part of the reason why our current migration programme is not working nearly as well.
Matthew Pantelis:
And affordability of housing was another factor then, as well, that housed, in terms of your annual income, was only about what, 10 times that, as opposed to the 30 times or whatever it is today?
Daniel Wild:
Well that’s exactly right. You mentioned housing before. Over the past year in Adelaide, house prices have gone up by 15%. The median is now the same as it is in Melbourne. Now, if you own a house, that’s great news. Your equity has gone up, your wealth has gone up, and that’s fair enough. But if you’re a young person trying to get into the market, it’s incredibly hard. Rentals are about $600 a week. So people are doing it tough there. And again, you’ve got to make sure you’ve actually got the planning in place. We just haven’t had enough houses built to accommodate for the surge in migration, and that’s the fault of the government.
Matthew Pantelis:
Yeah, absolutely. So best outcome would be what? To put a halt on it for a year or so to try and get ahead with housing?
Daniel Wild:
Yeah, I think you need to really look at something like that, or certainly a very significant reduction to the number that’s coming in. We did some polling last year, which found 60% of Australians believe that we did need to have a pause on the intake of migration until we have enough houses and other social services. So I think that’s an indication of the concerns that are there in the community. So I think a reduction to the levels is absolutely needed. A pause might be a little bit too far, in the sense that I accept that you need to have some people coming in to fill skills shortages in critical industries.
For example, in the defence industry, you’re probably going to need some engineers and highly skilled people to come in, but at the moment, the government’s been running something like 500,000 plus a year. I think that, that could be reduced very, very significantly and you wouldn’t notice any meaningful negative impact on our society.
Matthew Pantelis:
Indeed. All right, Daniel, fascinating discussion. Thank you for your time.
Daniel Wild:
Pleasure. Thank you.
Matthew Pantelis:
Daniel Wild, Deputy Exec Director at the Institute of Public Affairs with the results of research out today showing just how much migration, the levels it is at the moment. An average of some 40 odd thousand people coming into Australia per month in the last couple of years, and far above the seven odd thousand that were coming in during the Hawke-Keating years between 1983 and ’96. So migration has certainly gone through the roof of late. Hey, here’s some.
This transcript with Daniel Wild talking on FiveAA Mornings from 14 August 2024 has been edited for clarity.
