CHRC~ K AaATNR~ P fl1TLVFRV RMRARrZOF~ n ITTTT. flF. T. TU1IR. Y
SPEECH BY THE PRIME MINISTER
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION OUTLOOK CONFERENCE
MELBOURNE 14 NOVEMBER 1990
I want at the outset to congratulate John Nieuwenhuysen and
the Bureau of Immigration Research for the way in which they
have arranged and conducted this important Conference.
I welcome the research experts and policy specialists from
academia and government who will be bringing their special
skills to bear on the important issues of immigration and
ethnic affairs.
And I particularly welcome the presence of organisations
representing the broader community: churches, ethnic groups,
unions, businesses.
The nation's policies on immigration and ethnic affairs are
the responsibility of all Australians not the preserve of
a policy elit~ e. Thanks to this Conference, Australians have
the opportunity they deserve to subject these key policy
areas to an unparalleled scrutiny.
It will be rigourous and comprehensive scrutiny,
dispassionate and sophisticated precisely the qualities
whose absence from public discussion about immigration
prompted the Federal Government to establish the Bureau of
Immigration Research last year.
It is not too long ago that the phrase " immigration debate"
had been distorted to become a code-word for those who
wanted to cut the level of immigration and in particular
for those who wanted to do so by reintroducing racial
criteria into our selection procedures.
Compared to those days, the immigration debate now gives off
much less heat and much more light.
From every point of view, that is a welcome change.
Because of course there are important and legitimate
questions about immigration that deserve calm discussion and
careful study sensible questions about the overall size,
make up, administration and impact of immigration, including
its impact on the Australian economy and the Australian
environment. In endeavouring to answer these issues, our starting point
must not be, and is not: by what means can the criterion of
race be reintroduced to our selection procedures?
Our starting point is not: how can the immigration clock be
turned back to the 1950s and 1960s?
The starting point is: how best can the public be informed
about the totality of immigration and ethnic affairs
programs so that legitimate questions can be answered and
positive improvements made where necessary and so that
baseless concerns and fears are put to rest?
In few countries is this more important and more relevant
than in Australia.
Since 1788 we have been, and we essentially remain, a land
of migrants a community built up and made strong by waves
of new settlers who have over two centuries invested their
diverse skills and boundless hopes on making a new life for
themselves and their families in this country.
By the end of the Second World War, with a population of
just over seven million, Australia embarked on a massive
program to quicken the pace of immigration.
Since then, the annual intake has varied widely swinging
from a high of 185,000 in 1970 to a low of 53,000 in 1975.
The target for 1990-91 is 126,000
But the basic thrust of large-scale migration to Australia
has been consistent; our migration program has been one of
the largest in the world relative to the size of our
population. Since the Second World War, 60 per cent of our
population growth has been supplied by migration.
And over that period, too, the pool of countries and
cultures from which migrants have been selected has
gradually widened. Today, about one in five Australian
residents was born overseas, in one of more than 130 nations
around the world.
One of the central issues of this Conference is the question
of the impact of this mass immigration in particular, its
impact on the Australian economy.
A simple balance sheet of immigration would show
on one side, that immigrants contribute to
economic capacity through supplying more labour,
especially skilled labour;
and on the other, that immigrants make demands on
that economic capacity through immediate
consumption, and demands for housing and public
services.
It's not surprising that the downside of the balance sheet
often receives greater public attention especially in
times of national economic difficulties.
It's entire: ly understandable in such times that some people
might see migration making competition for jobs tougher.
It's understandable and especially so as our awareness of
the importance of the environment increases that some
people might see population pressures threatening our
fragile continent and depleting our resources.
It's underst~ andable but regrettable that some people
will assume that the help new arrivals receive as they
settle in Australia amounts to special privileges denied
long-term residents.
And it's understandable though wrong that some people
argue that immigration runs counter to the nation's
essential economic task of reducing its current account
deficit and inflation.
I don't agree with any of those arguments, but I describe
them as understandable because we have hitherto lacked the
data that would enable us to determine the precise costs and
benefits of immigration.
Of course, it was to provide such detailed analysis that we
established the Bureau of Immigration Research.
And I note with satisfaction the conclusions of the Bureau's
initial studies.
The recent publication, Australian Immigration, A Survey of&
the Tsii~ q, concludes that available research seems to
suggest that: immigration generally confers positive economic
benefits. None of the complaints about migrants taking Australian jobs
bears close academic scrutiny. Indeed, " the evidence
strongly refutes the claim that immigration leads to
increases in unemployment", according to the survey.
In other words, the balance sheet analysis comes out in the
black. The debate is about the scale of the benefits.
And this very important point needs to be understood.
The economic purpose of immigration from the Government's
point of view is not to achieve specific goals such as a
lower current account deficit or higher exports.
Those who argue about the alleged inflationary or debtcreating
nature of immigration miss the point.
There are more efficient arms of policy that can be applied
to meet broad macro-economic goals; immigration is not a tap
that can be simply turned on or off to fine tune the
economy. The economic purpose of immigration in addition to its
international humanitarian and family reunion aspects is
to strengthen the productive capacity of the economy.
Like any other form of investment in our country,
immigration may involve short-term costs, but it can produce
long-term benefits and it is the Government's very clear
aim to ensure those benefits are achieved.
We should all be proud that our immigration procedures no
longer discriminate-on grounds of race.
At the same time, our selection does discriminate a great
deal as it should on economic grounds.
The points system discriminates heavily in favour of
applicants who are young, whose jobs skills are in demand in
Australia, and who can speak English while recognising
too, fundamental humanitarian and family values.
In other words we have a sophisticated and dynamic means of
choosing among applicants directed precisely at enhancing
our national productive capacity
The skill level of immigrants has risen steadily under
my Government. In fact, migrants generally have higher
skills than the resident population, and healthy labour
force participation rates. This high rate of
employment enhances the scope for economic gains.
The family reunion and humanitarian categories of
immigration include sizeable elements of skilled
labour. It is too often overlooked that many family
members are now selected on the basis of skills.
The relative youth of the migrant intake delivers
longer term benefits for our productive capacity and
improves our ability to support dependent groups a
significant point as the baby-boom generation leaves
the workforce over the next couple of decades and
begins to rely on community support through age
pensions. Immigrants do bring new ideas, techniques and
experiences. They provide the potential for expanding
domestic markets, which enhances the adoption and
diffusion of new technology.
So we are creating, through immigration, a much stronger,
more powerful, more resilient economy one that should
enable us better to meet the challenges of competitive world
markets. And we are also creating a dynamic and cohesive community.
The skilled migrant of today may be the sponsor of the
family reunion migrant of tomorrow; Australia consciously
rejected any sort of guestworker scheme, where rich
countries use up the labour of people from less well off
countries and then send them home. That has been tried
elsewhere and has proven unsuccessful. We don't want to
create second-class citizens with a transient commitment to
Australia; we want their permanent commitment to Australia,
as full citizens of and participants in our nation. That is
the best way probably the only way to a coherent,
harmonious society.
So it is simply not true to claim, as some have done, that
Australia has an uncontrolled program, or that our capacity
as a sovereign nation to determine who should and should not
enter our country has been diminished and compromised.
Immigration is a tightly controlled process; each year, our
embassies and consulates around the world turn away hundreds
of thousands of people who do not meet our tight entry
requirements.
An integral aspect of the immigration program is the
attraction of migrants whose potential lies not in their job
skills but in their capital wealth and entrepreneurial
skills.
The business migration program has brought to Australia not
only new funding for businesses here but new know-how and
important social links that can help improve our trading
position. The Business Migration Program has received considerable
scrutiny recently. In order to ensure it achieves its
objectives the Government has recently implemented
mechanisms to reduce the risk of fraud and impropriety,
including the inspection of bank accounts and formalised
means for the verification of the transfer of applicants'
funds to Australia. Overall, however, business migration
remains of significant benefit to Australia.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I have said on many occasions that I favour a larger
population for Australia. I describe myself as a higher
immigration man rather than a lower immigration man.
I have said that ideally Australia might have a population
of about 25 million by 2015 or 2020 but there are too many
hypotheticals to make any such assumption a worthwhile
population target for Australia.
But I make very clear the thrust of Government policy: we
believe that with proper planning, Australia has the
capacity to absorb a growing population.
I repeat: with proper planning and provision.
We are of course seeking to resolve, through the
ecologically sustainable development processes, the
inevitable conflicts that arise about environmental
protection. We are bringing together unions, developers,
environmentalists and State Governments in working groups
that will help us as a community make decisions in the
future that are fully informed about the costs and benefits
of development proposals.
Clearly, environmental threats can be posed by people by
growing cities, by heavier infrastructure use, by increased
traffic in national parks as much as by traditional
economic activities. We have to find the right balance
here. To this end, the Government is to ask the National
Population Council to examine the major issues which flow
from the increase in Australia's population, as a result
both of net migration and natural increase.
The Council has a membership of economists, demographers and
sociologists, as well as representatives of the conservation
movement, trade unions and business, so it is well equipped
for the task.
I will be asking the Council to examine all pertinent
matters including the impact of population increase on the
economy, environment, human service delivery,
infrastructure, social equity and international obligations.
I want the Council to consult widely and to prepare a
discussion paper by next September, so that it will be
available for the Government's consideration, together with
the reports from the working groups on ecologically
sustainable development.
Ladies and gentlemen,
One of the reasons that Australian immigration has been such
a remarkable success story is that throughout the post-war
period, immigration has enjoyed broad bipartisan support at
the parliamentary level and broad community support.
Our methods of selecting and rejecting migrant applicants;
our annual targets; our policies for post-arrival
settlement; our recognition of Australia as a multicultural
society; our commitment to citizenship have all enjoyed the
support of both major political parties.
7
There was of course one brief and recent departure from
this, when the Opposition parties jettisoned
multiculturalism and toyed with the reintroduction of racial
criteria in migrant selection.
I note the Federal Opposition still has difficulties voicing
any kind of enthusiasm for multiculturalism, while seeming
to accept most of the policies embraced by that term.
But it is my very profound hope that bipartisanship will
return to the landscape of immigration and ethnic affairs.
When bipartisanship was breached, I had no reluctance about
fighting the poliical battle in defence of an immigration
policy free of racial discrimination.
But'I stress in this audience that there are two vitally
important poliny~ c reasons for wanting to see bipartisanship
back in place.
First, it will mean that where the immigration program needs
to be adjusted and fine-tuned in the future, as it has been
in the past, those changes can be made smoothly and
efficiently. And second, it will deny any vestige of credibility to those
extreme minority elements in the community who seek to turn
the clock back to racist selection procedures, or who seek
to undermine the firm foundations that have been laid for
national unity in our culturally diverse society.
Ladies and gentlemen,
From the xenophobic days of White Australia, we have created
an immigration program that has brought to our shores the
cultures, languages, and skills of the whole world.
We are a diverse and exciting society a far cry from the
essentially monocultural post-war Australia that embarked on
the great campaign of immigration.
I don't believe anyone today would want to sacrifice the
enormous lifestyle benefits each of us enjoys from living in
such a country in the 1990s.
And the most important thing is that for all the diversity
of our nation, we are still a united people in a cohesive
community. We are linked together by the strong bonds of our shared
adherence to the institutions and practices of parliamentary
democracy, and by our shared tolerant acceptance of
individual freedoms within the rule of law in short, we
are united by our shared commitment to Australia.
As a political leader, it is my obligation to ensure that
this commitment remains an abiding element of Australia' s
national character.
I I
I say this for two reasons.
The first is obvious. Australia cannot afford to slide into
the tragic circumstances that afflict other parts of the
world, by allowing racial, ethnic or sectarian divisions to
destroy our harmony, our productivity and our way of life.
The reverse is equally true and equally important. By
showing that people of diverse cultures can live together
with tolerance, in a productive and harmonious community, we
will be providing a model to the world and earning the
respect of the international community.
The internationalisation of the world economy, the
development of global telecommunications networks, the
growth of service-based industries such as tourism and
education these are all making a reality of the " global
village". In such a world, our links of trade, cultural exchange and
people-to-people contact are reinforced by our being a truly
multicultural community.
And as a society that has for more than four decades
fulfilled our humanitarian obligations to provide safe haven
for people displaced by war and hardship in their own
countries, we have earned international respect And
influence.
These broader benefits of immigration are very difficult to
quantify in a strict econometric sense.
But they are real benefits and enduring ones nonetheless.
So I urge you in your deliberations at this Conference to
cast the net of your inquiry and discussion as wide as
possible. The real questions are: what kind of Australia do we want to
live in and bequeath to our children? And in what ways can
an immigration program help us build that kind of Australia?
Having posed the questions, let me answer them in this way.
I want to see an Australia with a modern growing economy; an
Australia that is self-confidently enmeshed in the world
economy and the dynamism of our own region; an Australia
renowned for the quality of its life, not just the quantity
of its economic output; an Australia speaking in the forums
of the world with an independent voice to help shape a
better world; and Australia that vibrantly and fully
reflects the truth that all people are entitled to equal
opportunity irrespective of colour, race or creed.
9
With those goals, there is no doubt in my mind of the
positive and enriching contribution to be made by a
continuing immigration program, harnessing the skills of the
people of the world to build a stronger Australian economy
and drawing on the strength of their cultural traditions to
build a confident, dynamic and culturally diverse Australia.