Anne Stanley (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. What were the key updates to migration in the Albanese Labor government's budget? Are there any alternatives?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for the question and for the extraordinary work she does representing people in South-West Sydney. Tuesday night's budget confirmed that net overseas migration is now 45 per cent lower than it was at its peak, and what's important to remember is that every single migration setting when it hit its peak was one of the migration settings left by the former government—every single one of those. The 45 per cent reduction that has occurred has occurred under changes that have been made by this government.

Three key changes are represented in the budget that that was brought down on Tuesday night. First of all, in our permanent intake, 70 per cent of the permanent intake will now be taken by people who are already onshore, dealing with the fact of the increased numbers of people who have been on one temporary visa after another, who employers want but for whom we have not been able to find a permanent place. We're now shifting the permanent program to more of those places being taken by people who are already onshore, rather than offshore, than ever before. The second is to have a ballot system to start to put some limits around the working holiday-maker visa and to put some limits around the backpacker visa—a visa which, I might add, those opposite ruled out making any changes to before the last election.

The third thing that we've done that's represented in the reduction of the numbers is to bring down the numbers on international students. Now, international education functions differently to any other industry in Australia. International education is the only industry where you have to be able to find a home for every single customer, and, when we got to those peak levels, under their settings, of net overseas migration, half of that peak was international students. Those opposite might have forgotten that we brought in legislation for government to be able to put limits on international students. Those opposite might have forgotten that, when we did that, we said it was so that we could limit numbers of overseas students to take into account student housing. And what did they do when there was something to limit what was putting the upward pressure on net overseas migration? What did those opposite do for the one piece of legislation that said, 'On the biggest part of net overseas migration, we're going to link it directly to housing'? Those opposite voted no. Those opposite declared they were opposed to it. If they're opposed to doing anything on backpackers and opposed to do anything on students—for family visas, it's already the case that for a parent visa, which you can't apply for until you're 67, it's a 33-year wait—the only thing left that they will attack will be the skills that we need. (Time expired)