The pandemic has snapped the 'Big Australia' population rush. Morrison will soon fix that.

John Howard accelerated net migration, in 2005-06. Figures of 200,000 and much higher, unknown before 2007, have ever since been spun as normal. Or inevitable.

Post mining boom, the Coalition has claimed, superior management of a wunderbar economy. Never mind the steep population growth, severe housing unaffordability, stalling wages and household recession.

The border shutdown and economic recession are an unexpected opportunity. To revert to a more manageable population trajectory.

But Scott Morrison will "snapback" to a Big Australia. Already, his hometown Herald is propagandising the next population boom. Disguised as front page news.

And yet, you hear little of Morrison's actual population plan. As distinct from, his population promo.

In the real plan, Treasury updates net migration and population targets annually. And squirrels them into Appendix A of Budget Paper 3. As unexplained "parameters".

In fact, the percentage population growth is a vital prop for percentage GDP "growth". It affects the people. It should be, a Budget headline. It's neither displayed, nor discussed.

In 2019, Josh Frydenberg's Appendix A craved the second highest net migration ever. Instead, his speech touted the "strength" of a miracle economy in its "28th year" of growth. For 2019-20, he was pitching 2.75 per cent GDP growth. Always a big ask.

Josh's Budget Paper 1 showcased Morrison's population promo. In which, he spins Big Australia as a natural part of life. Like Australian sugar. "One of the big issues is population," he declares. "Everyone has a view."

His view wins. "Population growth" and the "most successful" multicultural society make us "the envy" of the developed world. Check our "congestion busting" and fake decentralisation.

These narratives replay, in the Commonweath-State population framework, revised at March 2020 COAG. Again, answers precede questions. Answers like "high population growth", "migration, in particular", "vibrant cities and regions" and "challenges, such as congestion".

The COAG premiers divide equally, between Labor and Liberal. Both sides agree, the population framework need not consult the population. It's Treasury business.

Wouldn't they at least, recheck on the environment? As in Crispin Hull's laundry list of "pandemic, climate change, cyber security, water security, over-population, species extinction, pollution, and natural-resource depletion".

Not at COVID COAG. Where it suffices to gloss population developments as "vibrant" and "sustainable". Drained of meaning, these words beg for respite.

With COAG gone, national cabinet retains a "population and migration" subcommittee. Morrison will spread the sugar. Treasury will keep the population levers.

Most years, Home Affairs lands Treasury migration targets passably well. Not Frydenberg's 271,000 target, for 2020. Instead, Morrison foreshadows 36,000, for 2020-21.

Frydenberg was seeking population growth at 1.7 per cent. COVID could reset that, underneath 1 per cent. More like the developed or OECD nations as a whole.

It's a "sliding doors" moment. So, what's next? Again, bet on a return to the winner's circle, from elite galloper Big Australia. Part owned by Chinese interests.

I listed his backers as political parties, Treasury and Reserve Bank, states and cities, developers, media, academics and unions. Never mind the electors or environment.

The backers despise the turncoats. Said Gladys Berejiklian, migration into NSW should halve. The media never investigated, how she was coaxed back into the fold.

Or consider, Home Affairs Shadow Kristina Keneally's recent opinion. The sheer level of migration "has hurt many Australian workers, contributing to unemployment, underemployment and low wage growth". Let's put "Australian workers first".

Words not lacking for evidence. Yet the media fulminated. "Adds fuel", "Hansonite populism", "slammed", "dropped a bomb" and "wrong to lecture us".

Cleverly, Morrison responded with spin. Not the racism card. Deep cuts to "skilled" migration would "hurt" the economy and "communities around Australia". We ought to rebound to 160,000-210,000 net migration. As per population prof Peter McDonald.

With respect, sirs. Unless history starts 2007, these are very beefy numbers. Plus, net (and permanent) migration is largely disconnected from skills in demand. Plus, most migrants head for Sydney or Melbourne. Not round Australia.

The Opposition Leader didn't react directly to Keneally. Indirectly, he was "not happy". His ensuing Vision Statement cited infrastructure, manufacturing and fairness. Not population.

Similarly, Frydenberg's May Statement ignored population. But I'd expect Morrison, to formally reintroduce mass migration. By (or in) October Budget 2020. I'd expect Albanese, to fall into line. As Kim Beazley did, for Howard.

The lobbyists will be relieved. They were fretting, even before Keneally intervened.

Important blokes like Ross Garnaut, Bill Evans, Martin Parkinson and Abul Rizvi. Pushing hard for migration-reflation, as the saloon passage to economic recovery. Other developed nations won't "envy" us that particular pathway.

Most "mainstream" economists are population boosters. Notably, our Reserve Bank chief. An interesting exception is Judith Sloan. Her angle wouldn't cut it. At Morrison's gas-fired COVID Commission.

While his property pals demand and get, regressive "home builder" grants. And still require the migration reboot. While the higher education lobby pleads for the full return of international students. Pre COVID, these contributed close to half of net migration.

Imagine if, environment or electors had the same clout, as mates and lobbyists. What requests might they slip through the sliding doors?

The environment, she might lean Hull's way. As do official State of the Environment reports and a notable ANU report. She's in trouble. And knows it's much harder than initialling the pledge for net zero 2050.

Voters, who carry the household load of Big Australia, tend to favour lower immigration and population growth. Post COVID, this Essential poll leans toward the Keneally line.

COVID gave us a glimpse of, people first, economy second. If too trusting of China, we've handled it much better, than US or UK. Who gave us the neoliberal virus in the first place.

We ought to be resourceful enough, to rebuild an economy less radically reliant on immigration. Me, I'd about halve the tailend of the McDonald-Morrison kite. Because, Aussie-style "jobs and growth" is a continuing recipe for low productivity. In summary then:

* Our real (or Treasury) population plan primarily defends market or "GDP growth" requirements, rather than standards of living per se.

* There being a powerful population lobby, and little electoral or environmental input, this plan will quickly revert to mass migration.

* The Morrison and Commonwealth-State population "plans" are fronts for the Treasury line.