Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Communications) Share this | Hansard source

In this very chamber two weeks ago, the Treasurer touted his Intergenerational report, declaring it:

… an incredibly important document to start a serious conversation about the challenges and opportunities ahead for Australia.

Some of these challenges are well acknowledged by all members of this parliament, with Australia's ageing population being a case in point. The Intergenerational report states that the number of Australians aged 65 and over is projected to more than double by 2055 compared with today, and it predicts that our population will comprise around 40,000 people aged 100 and over in 2055—that is up from just 122 centenarians in 1975.

Given this, and with the Intergenerational report concluding that 'these changes will require adjustments to our policy settings and the measures put forward by successive governments to meet community demands and expectations', the question arises: why has the Abbott government chosen to largely ignore the reality of the benefits of net overseas migration on our economy? The Treasurer may claim that 'this government is preparing and planning for the years ahead', but how can this possibly be the case when it chooses to ignore an economic resource that would help us to maintain our standard of living and care for our ageing population? Australia's tradition of welcoming immigrants from around the world has provided us with a rich source of vitality and has shaped our national character as a diverse and prosperous society. It is clear that, into the future, migration will remain critical both for established purposes and to address new challenges, but the Treasurer has since inexplicably stated that immigration is a 'rather lazy way' to grow. The only thing I would say is lazy here is the Treasurer's reading of the evidence. In spite of the Treasurer's belief that the Intergenerational report 'provides us with information we need to prepare for the future', in actuality the report bizarrely assumes that by 2055, the net overseas migration rate will be a mere 0.5 per cent of population. This is a figure that is just half the 2007 to 2018 average. How can the Treasurer, therefore, claim that the Intergenerational report helps us identify where the future opportunities will be, when its projections are based on a plainly underestimated migration rate?

Indeed, we need only compare these assumptions to an analysis undertaken by the Migration Council of Australia in its report, The Economic Impact of Migration 2015, released on the same day as the IGR, to know this is the case. Unlike the highly politicised IGR, the findings in the Migration Council report are based on independent economic modelling and more realistically assume net migration will be equal to 0.85 per cent of population, basing this on the average contribution to population growth between 1999-2000 and 2013-14.

If the Treasurer truly wants us to believe that this government will continue to invest in the key economic drivers of growth, as he claimed, perhaps he could take the time to examine the Migration Council of Australia's report, which provides a compelling case for migration and the economic benefits of a diverse and ageing Australia. The findings by the Migration Council conclude that by 2050, migration will have added over 15 per cent to our workforce participation rate; nearly 22 per cent to after-tax real wages for low skilled workers; and, significantly, close to six per cent in GDP per capita growth. More than this, the Migration Council report highlights that skilled migrants generally receive less government entitlements, including the age pension, and have often had the cost of their education met by their home countries. In other words, skilled migrants contribute more to the government in taxes than they consume in government services. It is a net winning outcome for the economy as a whole.

Given all this, there is no doubt that a skilled migration program will be critical to ensuring the continued success and prosperity of the Australian economy. Indeed, we only need to look to past evidence in Australia. The bold post-war immigration policy undertaken by the Chifley Labor government was one of the most profound decisions this nation has made. It opened opportunities for old cultures to flourish in a new land, enriching and diversifying Australian society. It was also a direction that provided a great new engine of human capital—a mass of workers whose energy, experience, expertise and offspring helped build Australia's post-war prosperity to new levels.

In the same spirit, the Migration Council has offered some important findings on the economic benefits of migration for policymakers to consider. And as the Scanlon Foundation's Mapping Social Cohesion survey for 2014 demonstrates, the vast majority of Australians recognise that immigrants have enriched and strengthened us.

The Treasurer said, 'We need to be better placed to respond to the potential for future economic downturns and pressures on the budget as we live longer.' If he truly meant this, I would urge him to reconsider the evidence and change this disturbingly myopic approach to the economic benefits of migration.

See this speech in context