Apocalyptic headlines scream “Nation’s fertility crisis” “Populate or Perish” – if you are an Australian woman scratching thirty-something, you’d be forgiven for feeling like some kind of moving target.  And if current federal government policy is anything to go by, that feeling won’t be disappearing anytime soon.

The government doesn’t have a population policy, but it’s definitely making choices it hopes will correct the predicted population decline.  Factors involved in this analysis include current size and age structure of the population, future estimates of fertility, mortality and annual migration levels. But a choice has been made, and a priority set – who is the federal government’s policy winner in the population stakes?  It seems the gold medal goes to fertility.

“..one for your husband, one for your wife and one for your country”

– P Costello, 11 May 2004

In its 2004 budget the government introduced what has come to be known as the “breeding budget”.  In came a host of tax benefits targeting families.  And the cherry on top?  The lump sum Maternity Payment of $3000 per newborn child post 1 July 2004, with an in-built increase to $4000 by July 2006, and to $5000 on July 2008.

So in picking fertility, did the government get it right?  “Yes” according to a number of prominent demographers.  There is no arguing around the fact that stabilisation of the fertility rate is necessary in affecting the population’s age structure – that is the ratio of old to young of working age.  To this end much research has been undertaken into causes of low fertility among Australian women (ranging from access to the Pill and tertiary education to workplace participation). 

But few experts would argue against the necessity of a specific level of immigration.  In their article “Can Increased Immigration Be a Substitute for Low-Fertility”, Kippen & McDonald assert that to some extent immigration can compensate for low fertility.  In “Australia’s Future Population: Population Policy in a Low-fertility Society” McDonald notes that “replacement migration” (a combination of migration and below-replacement fertility) can produce at least zero population growth.  To them, the solution lies not in a choice between fertility and migration, but in “prudent policy” relating to both.  We’ve seen where government is heading with fertility – but where to with immigration?

“running out of workers [and into trouble sic.]” - J. Howard Feb 2005

You guessed it – another crisis.  A recent industry survey reported the lack of skilled labour as the biggest constraint on business”.  The consequence of a sustained skill shortage?  Reduced economic growth, limited industry development and decreased international competitiveness.  So what exactly is the federal government doing?  On the one hand it’s acknowledging that Australia was, as Prime Minister John Howard put it “running out of workers” –  recently announcing an extra 20,0000 skilled migrant workers would “kickstart the economy”. Yet on the other hand the government simultaneously introduces skilled worker visa hurdles reportedly far higher than those in place in Britain.  Does that sound prudent to you?

Maybe it’s time to do some sums.  Department of Immigration statistics reveal that Australia’s 2003–4 permanent migrant category totaled 148,884 (‘skilled’ category – 74,851).  The temporary long-term arrivals for the same year was 58,230 (business’ category – 36,749).  The question to ask in the context of skilled labour, population growth and net migration is how many skilled workers actually get to stay permanently?  This is particularly important where population projections based on “per annum net migration” figures fail to account for the implications of a temporary category.  And all systems seem to be well past “go” on what migration expert Bob Birrell describes in his article “The Management of Immigration: Patterns of Reform”, as the “major expansion” of the temporary entrant category.  This trend has been nicely evidenced by Senator Vanstone’s recent announcement of a proposed guest-worker category for “labour-starved rural industries”.  In response Birrell warned that Australia would be entering “murky waters” given its treatment of Kanaka indentured labour last century.

This reference to Australia’s history (and its seeming repetition) is an interesting one, made more interesting by John Howard’s 2005 Australia Day speech.  He stated Australia could be proud of its long tradition of immigration – “It owes so much of its existence and its success to successive waves of immigration from different parts of the world”.  Well let’s take our Prime Minister’s advice and see if it’s his pride in the past rather than prudence, which is translating to immigration and fertility (population) policy today.

“proud of its long tradition of immigration” – J. Howard ,26 April 2005

As detailed in Jupp’s book “Immigration”, despite massive assisted-migration schemes targeting English migrants, labour was still needed in Australia. Accordingly, in the mid 1800’s non-europeans were allowed into the country to perform jobs Europeans didn’t want (sugar plantations, pearl divers, tin mining).  In 1901, legislation required forcible repatriation of all Pacific Islander workers. This was consistent with the White Australia policy aim of eventually eliminating non-Europeans from Australia, other than as temporary visitors.

In the 2000s we noted the trend in current immigration policy to use overseas skilled workers to address rural labour shortages (a.k.a jobs local workers don’t want), with a growing percentage of skilled workers forming part of the expanding temporary skilled category.  This logic characterises Vanstone’s proposed guest worker/repatriation category. And amongst it all, the 2003–4 top source for permanent and temporary migration categories remains Europe. 

Jupp also refers to a mechanism used from the 1800s involving the exclusion from Australia of female relatives of the predominantly male non-European immigrants.  The policy resulted in non-European numbers declining post 1901, and was used to force these men to remain single or return home, in keeping with the exclusionary tenets of the White Australia Policy.

Birrell notes the 1997 government decision to limit spousal visas to two years pending proof that partnership was “genuine and continuing’’.  The temporary visa means spouses are unable to receive welfare or educational benefits during this period.  The waiting period for a standard parent visa is ten years.  The “concessional” family category (siblings, other relatives) has been abolished, and only extremely limited family categories remain (explaining why the family category constitutes far less than half Australia’s migration program).

“Australia needs more home grown kids” – John Cadman (Liberal MP) 4 February 2005

It doesn’t seem coincidental that under the White Australia policy, female relatives were excluded in order to “eliminate” non-Europeans.  In the late 1800s, the Bulletin linked “decline in birthrate” to “racial suicide”.  Dixon, in her article “Gender, Class and Women’s Movements in Australia 1890, 1980” draws the link between “the family, with woman as mother at its heart” and “racial fears of a European outpost”.  Lake points out in “Women and Nation in Australia” that in the 1900s, women activists promoted “bearing and rearing the new generation [as]…still the most important job a woman can do for herself and her country”.  It’s perhaps not surprising that, as Lake reveals in her article “Mission Impossible: How Men Gave Birth to the Australian Nation”, with the introduction in 1912 of the hard-won 5 pound Maternity Allowance, it specifically excluded Asiatic, Pacific and Aboriginal women.

The two-year temporary spousal visa currently precludes the spouse from welfare or educational benefits.  Presumably female spouses would not be entitled to the government’s Maternity Payment – which is certainly in keeping with good historical tradition.  It would seem some children are more important than others…

And the future goes to…?

Jupp predicts that by 2010 Australia will be less multiracial than the US or New Zealand.  Statistics show in 2001 approximately 88% of Australians were of European ancestry compared to 80% in New Zealand (2001) and 75.1% in the US (2000).  It’s hard to shake the pro-natalist feeling of the government’s fertility ‘drive’, particularly given the backyard we’re populating retains such a clear racial demographic.

While racist, home-grown protectionism is part of Australian migration history, there can be no room for it in our policy platform now.  Population ratio, not the race ratio, is what needs addressing.  What should be startlingly obvious is that the predicted fertility crisis talks of tomorrow, but the labour crisis is already here to stay.  And some knee-jerk, turn the tap “on and off” approach to migration policy is not going to cut muster where global competition for the best skilled workers is already running red-hot.

What the government needs to grapple with is this. In a decade’s time, it won’t be highly-skilled immigrants who’ll be begging to get in, but rather Australia begging them.  Begging them to come here, and not the US, New Zealand or numerous other developed countries suffering chronic labour crises.  If the government wants to set Australia apart, it could start by relying less on exclusionary mechanisms such as temporary work placements, by ceasing to engineer the tearing apart of immigrant’s families, and in stamping their children ‘second-class’.  And that’s just for a start. The world is watching…if the government allows history to repeat itself, it sentences our future to certain decline.

Priya SaratChandran is a Fellow at OzProspect