HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-07-21 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

POPULATION STRATEGY

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. J.M.A. Lensink:

That the Environment, Resources and Development Committee undertake a review into South Australia’s population strategy, specifically—

1. the usefulness of the population targets as set in the State Strategic Plan;

2. the capacity of existing energy, water and arable land sources to provide for these projected targets;

3. the impact of the implementation of the 30-year plan on stressed habitats;

4. projections of the ability of South Australia’s workforce to provide adequate skills for future demands and what changes to the mix of migration are required to address future needs, including for regional South Australia;

5. barriers to the retention of overseas skilled migrants;

6. limitations of existing data collection regarding skilled migrant trends; and

7. any other matter.

(Continued from 26 May 2010.)

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (21:26): In speaking to this motion I move to amend the motion as follows:

Leave out all words at the beginning of the motion, namely, 'That the Environment, Resources and Development Committee undertake a review into South Australia's population strategy specifically—' and insert the following:

That the council notes the state government is currently undertaking a review into South Australia's population strategy and acknowledges the progress and success that the state has made since the population policy was published in 2004. The review will consider matters regarding sustainability and population and migration and will be informed by existing plans such as the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, Water for Good and the Training and Skills Commission's five-year plan.

In moving this amendment, the government agrees to consider:

the usefulness of the population targets as set out in the State Strategic Plan;

the capacity of existing energy, water and arable land sources to provide for these projected targets;

the impact of the implementation of the 30-year plan on stressed habitats;

projections of the ability of South Australia's workforce to provide adequate skills for future demands and what changes to the mix of migration are required to address future needs, including for regional South Australia;

barriers to the retention of overseas skilled migrants;

limitations of current data collection regarding skilled migration trends; and

any other matter.

In other words, the government has made a commitment to address and consider all the issues moved in the motion of the Hon. Michelle Lensink. The state government has set population targets to ensure prosperous and sustainable economic growth, to support innovative and skilled workplaces and to support the community meeting its future needs.

The government has set these targets, ensuring that development takes place within a framework of sustainability, economic, environmental and social. The government has put into place planning mechanisms and processes to accommodate a growing population that are integrated, comprehensive and long term. This planning process includes urban development and interaction with natural habitats.

The second theme in the motion relates to government workforce and migration projections. The state government has a very strong capability to project future demand for occupations, the impact of these demands on education and training systems and the role of skilled migration to fill any gaps in local supply.

The Training and Skills Commission provides regular updates of future demand for skills over a forecast five-year period. This process involves considerable and widespread consultation with industry and other relevant stakeholders to understand their future skills needs and to incorporate this information into the workforce planning process.

This information is provided to the Department of Trade and Economic Development to inform the development of annual skilled occupation lists. I would like the opportunity to expand further on the government's amended motion in order that members can hear this government's commitment to this important matter. The Rann government considers population targets to be vitally important in setting out the desired growth pattern for the state to reach demographic sustainability and to positively influence workforce and economic outcomes for the state and its residents, particularly in the regions.

The government also recognises that a growing population can, without proper planning processes, bring about adverse effects on the environment, people's wellbeing and ultimately quality of life. Community concerns on the sustainability of population growth relate to issues such as whether the state will have enough water to consume, traffic congestion, greenhouse emissions and the impact on local habitats of urban creep on the metropolitan fringes of Adelaide.

These concerns have to be balanced with the importance of population to sustaining regional communities, sustaining consumption and growing markets, meeting skills requirements of business and maintaining the status of South Australia at a national level. Population targets have not been set in isolation from planning how a government will meet demands for its services, how the physical capacity of utilities and resources will grow to accommodate population change and the setting of a business environment conducive to promotion of investment and employment creation.

Plans such as Water for Good and the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide provide a sound basis to sustain this population growth. The government's substantial investment in desalinisation, upgrading our public transport systems and enhancing our road networks illustrates how we are putting this planning into action. As mentioned, the government is conducting a review of the existing population policy, which will consider matters regarding sustainability and population and migration.

The 2004 policy was developed in direct response to projections that South Australia's population would head into decline before 2030. Following its release, South Australia's Strategic Plan incorporated several population targets, including one to increase net overseas migration to 8,500 per year by 2014. This was achieved by 2005 and since then has been increasing every year. The updated population policy will not only inform the revision of population targets contained within South Australia's Strategic Plan but also inform the federal government's review under the leadership of Australia's first Minister for Population, the Hon. Tony Burke MP. The collaborative approach between the commonwealth and state governments demonstrates the importance placed on managing population in South Australia in both Australia and South Australia.

I turn now to the workforce related elements of the member's motion. Assisting industry groups and individual businesses source labour to meet project demands or industry growth targets is also a core government strategy. The planning for meeting skills requirements incorporates total supply: local graduates and overseas and interstate migration and the future demand for each occupation at an industry level.

The modelling of skills requirements is undertaken by DFEEST. This work is used not only for informing the state-sponsored migration list but also for the work of the Training and Skills Commission, and the state government in its resource allocation process for the vocational education and training, or VET, sector. The criteria include: labour market criteria matching with supply and demand; government priority for STEM occupations—that is, science, technology, engineering and maths—to support growing industries; consultation with industry; and fine or sensitivity considerations, including specific occupational industry needs.

State-sponsored migration is considered a very important aspect, meeting both workforce growth targets and also increasing the general skill levels of the South Australian workforce. The government recognises that, given the recent increase in the number of migrants coming to the state, retention becomes an issue if population targets depend on overseas people becoming residents in the state over the long term.

The demand for specific occupations or people with certain skills can change over time to be unduly influenced by delays in the visa process or lags in labour market information. If migrant arrivals find that those opportunities do not exist, then retention becomes an issue without support services in place.

In addition, growth of particular industries will, in part, depend on the ability to source skilled labour and if overseas people with relevant skills cannot be retained because of difficulties with settlement then growth aspirations may not be met. The government provides appropriate support to state-sponsored migrants upon arrival and, in the first months of settlement, understanding that information about a new country and providing networks and access to services have an important influence on long-term settlement outcomes.

I understand that the Minister for Industry and Trade in the other place will be overseeing the development of the review. The population policy review was announced on 17 July, and honourable members may wish to also read the minister's announcement. It is expected that the revised policy will be ready for cabinet's consideration by mid next year. If I may, I will place some of the minister's comments on the record:

We need our population to grow so that our economy can continue to expand but we also need to take into account the impact of an expanding population on issues such as climate change and water, urban planning, transport, the provision of health services and water infrastructure.

Later in his media release he states:

This is a challenging task but a strong population policy is vital in ensuring strong economic development and sustainability. It is imperative that we get this right. Future population policy development will be supported by a high level, whole-of-government steering group and team of population experts. Interested parties will also be able to have a say during a public consultation period, with submissions to be called later this year.

Given the announced government review, with its access to the resources required as well as far-reaching public consultation and that this body of work will also feed into and inform the announced sustainable population review to be held at the federal level, I would ask honourable members of the chamber to support the motion in the amended form As previously mentioned, I would also ask that members note that the minister has made a commitment to address all of the seven points, as moved by the Hon. Michelle Lensink.

In asking members to support the motion in the amended form, I commend the Hon. Michelle Lensink for what has turned out to be a timely policy issue to be addressed in the work of the government. I believe, without making any judgment on the efficiency of the ERD Committee—of which I am a member and indeed, so is the Hon. Michelle Lensink—that, given the significance of this body of work, it is best placed as a government review. I would urge honourable members to support the motion in the amended form.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Carmel Zollo, could you come up here for a minute? There is something wrong with that amendment. We are trying to sort it out. It might save us all a bit of time if we can sort out the amendment.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: I would like to speak to it.

The PRESIDENT: Would you?

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Yes.

The PRESIDENT: Well, I have got Mr Parnell down before you.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Get someone to speak. Let's get on with it.

The PRESIDENT: We are trying to get on with it.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Well, the motion is ridiculous.

The PRESIDENT: Well, that is what we are trying to sort out.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Well, it is a bit late; she has moved it. She can't un-move it. Someone else will have to fix it up.

The PRESIDENT: Well, that is what we are trying to do.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Well, she can't. What incompetence!

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Before concluding my comments, I understand that we need to correct the amendment. I understand there has been a mistake.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: We do? You do.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Well, I need to correct the amendment.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Exactly. You're incompetent. Don't get us to correct it.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: There is no change in the actual words, so calm down.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Yes, there is. There is a change in the motion.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Just calm down.

The PRESIDENT: All calm down.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: We need to leave out all the words after 'That', in line 1 and insert the following—what I said before:

the council notes the state government is currently undertaking a review into South Australia's population strategy and acknowledges the progress and success that the state has made since the population policy was published in 2004. The review will consider matters regarding sustainability and population and migration and will be informed by existing plans such as the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, Water for Good and the Training and Skills Commission's five-year plan.

In other words—for the information of the Hon. Rob Lucas, who is getting himself very excited—all we are doing is leaving out the word 'that' in my amendment, so calm down.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Point of order, Mr President. This chamber has had an amendment moved, seconded and spoken to. The Hon. Ms Zollo cannot just stand up and say we need to do something different.

The Hon. Carmel Zollo: That's my advice from the President. Do you know any better?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, I do. I intend to outline it in the point of order. No member can just stand up and say, 'We now need to do things differently.' The member will have to seek leave to withdraw the amendment. Then, if the council agrees to the withdrawal of the amendment, the member can seek leave to move an amendment in a different form. I suspect even then that that is contrary to the standing orders, but if the chamber was willing to be gracious, at the incompetence of the Hon. Ms Zollo, we may well agree to doing it contrary to the standing orders. You cannot just stand up as a member, drowning in your own incompetence, and say that we now need to do something and that people should not get upset about it.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Ms Zollo can seek leave to withdraw her original amendment to move—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Which is what I just said.

The PRESIDENT: —I'll make the rules here—and move the corrected amendment.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I seek leave to withdraw my original amendment.

Leave granted.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I move:

Leave out all words after 'That' in line 1 and insert the following:

the council notes the state government is currently undertaking a review into South Australia's population strategy, and acknowledges the progress and success the state has made since the population policy was published in 2004. The review will consider matters regarding sustainability and population and migration and will be informed by existing plans such as the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, Water for Good and the Training and Skills Commission's five-year plan.

I have now repeated that three times; that is how good it is. I again urge members, as I have done previously, to support this motion. Rather than send a reference to the ERD Committee, I believe a well-resourced government review will achieve greater results for the state.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (21:47): The Greens support the motion. I rise to speak in favour of it as the third member from this chamber of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee. I acknowledge that the Hon. Michelle Lensink, the mover of the original motion, also sits on that committee. I had thought that, rather than have to bring a motion to this place, we may have been able in the committee to have agreed to this inquiry, but clearly the Hon. Michelle Lensink had some premonition that the government might not like it, so it is a more efficient method to have brought this motion before us as clearly it would have failed, given that the government has the numbers on that committee.

In relation to the merits of the motion, it relates to population, which can be a vexed debate. It is easily side-tracked by, for example, fear campaigns over asylum seekers with dog whistle politics or, in some cases, vuvuzela politics as the dog whistles are so loud and audible, and the fear that some federal members of parliament would have us feel in relation to asylum seekers, which ignores the fact that they are such a very small part of new arrivals that we really do need to put it into perspective.

The new Prime Minister says that we need a sustainable Australia rather than a big Australia. I agree that we need a mature debate. In South Australia the government unashamedly wants a big state—it is planning for it. It is not just planning for increased population because that is inevitable; it is planning for it because they want it to happen. The population projections that underpin a large number of the government's current plans are contested. They are by no means soundly based in evidence, but the decisions made on the basis of these population projections are irreversible.

Once you have rezoned the farmland around Mount Barker from farming to housing, and you have allowed subdivisions to occur, it is irreversible. We are not going to go back, even if the population projections turn out to be wildly overstated. The 30-year plan in fact entrenches urban sprawl and population growth whether or not that is good for South Australia.

In terms of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee, the committee is yet to decide on its own inquiry program. I understand from the Parliamentary Committees Act that there is a pecking order applied to inquiries: at the top of that order is a matter that has been referred by a house of parliament, and an inquiry undertaken of the committee's own volition is dealt with as a secondary matter.

I note that whilst the committee is yet to decide on its inquiry program, certainly there has been some informal discussion amongst members that one inquiry might be into higher density housing, including transit-oriented development, and I think that, as an idea for an inquiry, has some merit. If it in fact does get up as one of the committee's own inquiries, this Legislative Council ordered inquiry will absolutely complement that work because they are very much a part of the same issue.

I turn briefly now to the Hon. Carmel Zollo's amendment to the motion. In this amendment, she basically invites us simply to note that the government has the matter under control and that the matter is in hand. I understand that the announcement of the inquiry was last weekend, and the effect of the proposed amendment is that this council is being urged by the government to sit back, relax and allow the government to undertake its own inquiry, rather than the more rigorous process that will come from an inquiry by the Environment, Resources and Development Committee, where we will call the witnesses and we will determine who it is we want to give evidence.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I am not going to be distracted. In general terms, if there is ever an alternative put that we have a parliamentary committee inquiry or we just have a government inquiry, I need a great deal more convincing than that which the Hon. Carmel Zollo offered to think that a government inquiry is the preferable option. If I look at some of the words in the Hon. Carmel Zollo's amendment, she notes:

The review will consider matters regarding sustainability and population migration—

that is fine, but this is the bit that sticks in my craw—

and will be informed by existing plans such as the 30-year plan for Greater Adelaide, Water for Good and the Training and Skills Commission's five-year plan.

The problem with that is that the government is proposing to take as given some of the most flawed documents that have ever been presented to the people of South Australia. In other words, if this inquiry is going to be informed by the 30-year plan, it is not going to question the 30-year plan or the population projections that underlie it. It is basically going to say that this is a starting point, we accept it as a fact and we will go from there.

In fact, I think the Environment, Resources and Development Committee will do a much more thorough job and that we will actually debunk a fair bit of the 30-year plan and its flawed thinking, including the contested population growth projections that underlie the plan. So, with those brief words, the Greens will be supporting the original motion in its unamended form.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (21:53): I rise only to speak briefly on matters of procedure—

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Hear, hear—on matters of procedure in relation to this issue. The Hon. Ms Zollo tabled an amendment a minute before this debate was to ensue, and my only suggestion to government members to try to prevent—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Calm down!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —embarrassment to members like the Hon. Ms Zollo is that it would make sense actually to circulate amendments to members of the Legislative Council at least a little while prior to the debate. It is not as if this was off being drafted. It is clearly a considered position of the caucus, so, at the very least, it would have been known, we assume, since yesterday morning. As the Hon. Mr Finnigan tells us, everyone knows that the caucus meets on Tuesday mornings. So, for 40 hours or so, the government has known its position, and I think it is only common courtesy for members of the government, if they wish amendments to be considered, to table them or file them as we are required to file amendments to government legislation or others.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: Chuck him out! You need a big crane to do it, but chuck him out.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The amendment was drawn up some weeks ago and, like all amendments, it is circulated on the day.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Thank you, Mr President. Well, that's even worse. I thought it was only done yesterday, but if this amendment was drawn up some weeks ago, the President has let the cat out of the bag.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This amendment was drawn up weeks ago—

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —and yet this member won't even put it on the table until we're here.

The PRESIDENT: Sit down!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Outrageous!

The PRESIDENT: Sit down! You're the one who's outrageous. You know full well that even your amendments do not get distributed in the council until they are moved. If the Hon. Ms Lensink would like to sum up?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: What was the point of your statement, Mr President?

The PRESIDENT: I said that you know full well that amendments are drawn up and then they don't get circulated in the council until they are moved. Would the Hon. Ms Lensink sum up?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, I'm still speaking.

The PRESIDENT: Are you?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Indeed.

The PRESIDENT: Unless I sit you down, you mightn't be.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, you might like to try, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: I might like to try.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: On what grounds?

The PRESIDENT: On the grounds that I'm the President.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Are you?

The PRESIDENT: And if you don't start making a bit of sense, I will sit you down.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, you are at the moment, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: I'm making lots of sense.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thank the President for his intervention because he made it quite clear that this amendment had been drawn up weeks ago. All I am saying is that it would make sense if you have an amendment to a motion—and this is not the end of the world—

The PRESIDENT: You're seeming to make it out to be.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It is not as if this is the most controversial issue that needs to be addressed by this chamber.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, her amendment was properly drawn up. The Hon. Ms Zollo's was incompetent—

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —and made no sense and embarrassed her in the chamber. All I am suggesting is—

The PRESIDENT: Order!

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, the Hon. Ms Bressington didn't make a mistake with hers.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Lucas will get on with his point or he will sit down.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Thanks, Mr President, for your help.

The PRESIDENT: You're welcome.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The point I am making is that, to save members from their own incompetence, like the Hon. Ms Zollo, if she had circulated the amendment beforehand, a number of us could have looked at it and provided some advice.

The Hon. Carmel Zollo: It was.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, it wasn't.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. Carmel Zollo interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, to us.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. Carmel Zollo interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: So, we're not deserving of seeing a copy. What about the Independents?

The PRESIDENT: Order! Members of the government should not encourage the grandstanding. The Hon. Mr Lucas.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Thank you for your assistance, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: You're welcome.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I can't hear myself think over the shrieking from the backbench. The only point that I am making is that it just makes sense in relation to these issues—and even the final procedures that were adopted, in my view, were still contrary to the standing orders, but in the spirit of graciousness that the opposition and other members are known for, we acceded to the member in seeking to move it in an amended form.

My interpretation of the standing orders would be that the amendment should have been defeated and another member on behalf of the Hon. Ms Zollo could have moved the amendment in a different form. It had been moved and seconded. She had spoken to it. She has no right, on any reading of the standing orders, in my humble view, to stand up at that stage and move the amendment in a different form.

As I said, this council was being gracious and allowed the Hon. Ms Zollo to do that. That is the only point that I am making. It would make sense if you have an amendment—and it is not as if it is the most controversial issue being addressed by this chamber—to circulate it so that members in the chamber can look at it, and if there is a problem, can address it. That is just a simple request to the Hon. Ms Zollo and to government members, Mr President. I thank you for your courtesy.

The PRESIDENT: Under standing order 140, 'A proposed amendment may, by leave of the council, be withdrawn by the mover; and may be again moved.' So, if the Hon. Mr Lucas stays here for another 20 years he will get it right.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (22:00): I thank all honourable members for their contributions. I acknowledge that the Hon. Carmel Zollo did provide me with a copy of her amendment yesterday, for which I am grateful, and I am grateful for her remarks in which she has described the terms of reference that I have outlined as useful and that the government would use them in its inquiry.

However, I certainly will not be accepting her amendment to this motion. For the benefit of honourable members, in case they are not quite aware, the government is simply seeking to withdraw the referral of this important issue to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee and do an exercise in congratulating itself on behalf of this council on the strategy which it curiously announced on the weekend, some half a week before this particular motion was to be voted on. The substance of the—

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, you do. You have a tendency to steal a whole lot of our stuff and crossbench stuff on a regular basis.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Lensink has the floor.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: In response to the Hon. Carmel Zollo's comments that it would be a very large body of work to undertake, that may well be the case but the Environment, Resources and Development Committee, at least prior to the election, was a very efficient committee and undertook an extensive inquiry into transport, which I think could be called in shorthand—

The Hon. Carmel Zollo interjecting:

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: No. For the transport inquiry we engaged the University of South Australia, I think it was, to assist us. It looked at all forms of transport and came up with a number of very useful recommendations. So I think that is a bit of a furphy. The population debate is divided largely into two areas, one being the environmental constraints, and I think Labor has belatedly realised that the whole issue of population is a very mainstream concern in our community and therefore the targets that it has set are some cause for alarm.

I have discussed this issue with Mitch Williams, who is our water spokesman. As members may be aware, he farms sheep and has a fairly basic rule of thumb: he calls it 'carrying capacity'. If he has a certain area of land, he knows that he can carry a certain amount of stock, and I think that is basis on which the environmental concerns are arising.

The other aspect, which I will very briefly talk about just to update the chamber from when I moved the motion, is in relation to skills. We are in a unique position at the moment where the federal government is revising its skilled occupation lists. South Australia needs to provide a very accurate list of skills which will assist us with our future economic growth. For that reason the Skilled Migration Growth Group (I will not run through the entire list of employer groups that it represents) was formed to try to assist the government with that particular aim, and I have written to the Minister for Industry and Trade, the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis, and urged him to meet with them ASAP, and I certainly hope that he does.

However, the government has not actually achieved its migration targets. Indeed, the strategy that it outlined in 2004 has not been held to account. I will refer to a couple of points there. In particular, under 'Strategies for population growth and renewal', it says:

This population policy's broad strategic objectives are to improve:

(1) the State's net migration performance by:

(a) increasing the State's share of the national migration intake;

and on that count it has not; it has been decreasing since 2006—

(b) increasing the number of expatriates and potential interstate migrants returning or relocating to the State;

(c) reducing the net outflow of young and skilled people.

In relation to those, we are actually doing really badly. As recently as 25 May the ABS put out a media release headed, 'Interstate migration continues to slow South Australian population growth.' It says that South Australia continues to lose people to other states at a greater rate than it gains them, according to a report. After hitting a 20-year low in 2005-06, the number of South Australians moving interstate has increased, with about 26,300 departing in 2008-09. Net losses have also increased in the six years to 2008-09.

That net interstate migration loss was calculated at 4,676. This is regardless of a policy that the Rann Labor government published in 2004 that aimed to reduce that figure to zero. So it is well over 4,500 people, and I think those statistics need to be held to account.

The other issue that I think needs to be examined is whether population statistics include temporary visa holders and student visa holders or whether they merely include long-term permanent residents. In this regard, my understanding is that the ABS has revised the way it calculates population and now includes temporary visa holders when it has not in the past, so that is another issue we need to examine.

There is a lot of rubbery stuff going on with regard to population. I am not surprised that the government has sought to turn the committee system into a poodle so that it can just undertake its own population statistics and ask that this council commend it for its work. I commend the original motion without the amendment to the parliament.

Amendment negatived; motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT