It’s been revealed this morning that Immigration Minister Peter Dutton took to Cabinet a proposal to cut Australia’s non-humanitarian migrant intake to 170,000 from 190,000, but that this was rejected by both Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Treasurer Scott Morrison. From The Australian:
Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton proposed cutting the annual immigration intake by 20,000 to cabinet colleagues last year but Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison knocked the idea on the head.
The proposal was to reduce the ceiling on annual permanent migration from 190,000 to 170,000. Mr Dutton’s argument was based on public concern at the rate of immigration, well-placed sources said.
The Australian understands Mr Dutton was backed at the time by then deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce, but the Prime Minister and the Treasurer opposed it…
Asked on Sky News about Mr Abbott’s proposal to cut immigration numbers, Mr Dutton said yesterday he was not proposing a cut now.
“People are feeling pressures within capital cities,” he said. “I understand that and I hear that message. I am not proposing to cut the numbers.”
The Australian’s Denniss Shanahan believes Turnbull’s and Morrison’s opposition to immigration cuts is poor judgement politically:
Dumping the proposal also shows a lack of political foresight. Whatever the principles of a cut — and there are valid reasons for not reducing our intake from 190,000 a year or for making a modest cut — the politics is clear. There is public concern about the level of immigration, heard in capital-city suburbs for more than a decade as a lack of public transport, decent roads and affordable housing fuel the sense Australia is “too crowded”…
Justified or not, the fears are real…
Had Dutton won support for a 20,000 reduction last year, it would have cut the lifeline to One Nation, reassured people things were under control and not given the former PM yet another policy difference with Turnbull.
As does The Australian’s Judith Sloan:
There is no doubt Malcolm Turnbull, for reasons that are not entirely clear, is firmly opposed to any cut to the number of permanent migrants…
But I guess if you live on the harbour in Point Piper, the urban stresses that mere mortals in Sydney and Melbourne face on a daily basis are hard to understand. But there are some “wets” in the ministry and others on the backbench who are also dead against cutting the migrant intake. They include members whose seats have large migrant populations. Note the new temporary grandparent visa has been a sop for those members…
The reality is the Turnbull government has two chances to win the next election: do something dramatic about electricity prices and cut the immigration program. Both decisions would differentiate the Coalition from Labor. At budget time, the government has a real chance to secure some political advantage by recasting the migration program, both in terms of numbers and composition…
In the meantime, he [Turnbull] should advise Morrison to ignore Treasury on immigration: it is per-capita income that matters and the economic benefits that accrue after many years are largely snaffled by migrants themselves. It’s time Treasury was sidelined on this.
The below chart plots Australia’s permanent migrant intake, which shows that the non-humanitarian intake is running at a record 190,000 people a year, versus just 70,000 at the turn of the century:
The Dutton proposal was too small to make a material difference but if Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull had any political nous, he would significantly slash the migrant intake in this year’s Federal Budget. Not only is it sound policy to do so, given the severe indigestion being experienced in the major cities (let alone damage to the natural environment), but there are also several political advantages, namely:
- It would wedge Labor on housing affordability making negative gearing cuts more scary for voters now and pushing house prices down further when the reform is introduced.
- It would wedge Labor on wages and help counter its inequality agenda.
- It would wedge Labor on national security and further expose the scandal around Labor links to the Chinese Communist Party.
- It would mitigate One Nation, which currently owns the lower immigration debate among conservative voters.
- If Labor does win the next election, it would force it to raise the permanent migrant intake back up, which would be very unpopular among voters.
In a similar vein, if Labor had any brains, it would beat the Coalition to the punch and argue to cut immigration on the grounds that maintaining a mass intake is illogical when labour underutilisation is high, wages are barely growing, and people cannot afford homes. You know, Labor values (which the party sadly no longer represents).
However, judging by Chris Bowen’s recent comments giving unwavering support for “strong immigration”, Labor has pigeon-holed itself as the party for a “Big Australia”.
This is a major strategic blunder upon which the Coalition should capitalise. It may not win them the next election, but it will set them up for a swift return to office as Labor’s open borders extremists turn radioactive with falling living standards.
