UNCLASSIFIED
immigration. He said that Labor would not be "motivated by crude political instincts like we have seen from the Liberal Party in the late 1980s and which we are seeing a bit of now" and continued that he expected a repeat of the 1988 experience (when then Liberal Party leader, Mr Howard, called for reduced Asian immigration): which, Mr Keating said, had been basically about how "we should not have more Asians here." Mr Hand subsequently distanced himself from his Prime Minister's comments, making clear that he did not see Opposition policy as motivated by racism. Opposition spokesmen have flatly rejected the accusation and Dr Hewson has retorted that Mr Keating's comments indicated that he had no immigration policy and prefered mud-slinging instead of reasoned argument. The Prime Minister's intervention was probably stimulated by comments the week before by Mr Howard (Shadow Industrial Relations Minister) who argued that it was "economic lunacy" to bring people to Australia only to put them on the dole queue. He called for substantial and dramatic immigration cuts. This line of argument is not restricted to the conservative side of politics: the labor movement has also called for reduced migration at this time of high unemployment. Most recently, the NSW Labor Council has called for a migration cut, arguing that the commitment to high immigration, justifiable during periods of normal economic growth, should be reversed. in a period of recession.
4.
Research continues into the economic and social pros and cons of immigration. As yet, no clear-cut answers have emerged. The latest two major studies by BIR suggest that if the annual migration intake was halved to about 50,000, there would be little effect on unemployment, but the resulting cut in private dwelling investment would have significant negative knock-on effects on the housing industry and employment, which in turn could impede recovery from recession (as the housing sector has traditionally led the Australian economy in the business cycle). That study continued by arguing that maintaining a high immigration programme was on balance economically beneficial and would increase GDP. Some observers, however, argue that by maintaining a high immigration programme GDP per head would not rise and that most Australians would be better off with reduced immigration. This seems to be borne out by the contradictory findings of a separate BIR study using slightly different assumptions. A recent commentary in the "Australian" concluded that immigration policy should have a medium-term setting (few would disagree with this) but that Australians still had to face up to deciding on a level of immigration appropriate for an economy undergoing widespread structural change with its associated high and prolonged unemployment; "this is just as much a social as an economic issue and a good case can be made out for temporary lower immigration during such a phase of traumatic cultural adjustment.
The Opposition certainly share that view. Not only do they call for sharply reduced immigration, but also for a marked shift in the skill composition of the overall programme.
/ 5. Immigration'
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.