Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Hansard source

I would say to Senator Ayres—and I'll take his interjection—go back and have a look at page 47 of the budget for October 2022-23. Open up at that page and have a look at your forecasts, the Treasurer's own forecasts, with respect to net overseas migration and take some responsibility. This is what the Treasurer said in Budget Paper No. 1, released in October 2022-23, in relation to forecasts. The net overseas migration forecast in the 2022-23 year—this was Jim Chalmers's forecast—was 235,000. That was the forecast. And what was it? Over 520,000. Then, in 2023-24, Jim Chalmers and the Labor government's forecast was 235,000. And what was it? Over 446,000. So those are two devastating pieces of miscalculation. What is going on in relation to the forecasting function within the Labor government? How do you explain that? With a forecast of $235,000 for 2022-23, the number came in at $528,000. With a forecast of $235,000 for 2023-24, the number came in at $446,000. That's the first point I would make in relation to Senator Ayres's interjection.

The second point I would make is that the Labor government still hasn't announced the 2025-26 permanent migration program. It still hasn't been announced. We're now in mid-August, and they still haven't announced the permanent migration program for 2025-26. This issue has been raised by the MIA, the Migration Institute of Australia, because it's causing real issues for people seeking to take advantage of the skills stream, in particular the skilled independent stream. They've made applications, gone through processes. They're being advised by immigration agents. They're doing the right thing. Yet the government still hasn't announced the 2025-26 permanent migration program. So, how about you take some responsibility for that?

And how about you take some responsibility for this: we received, on 11 August 2025, the latest update with respect to onshore visa applications and processing in relation to humanitarian visas. Now, I know people who are in this position who have applied for onshore humanitarian visas, and I always do my best to listen to their circumstances and provide assistance where I think it's appropriate. But let me say, on 5 October 2023 the Labor government released a strategy, after beating up on the previous coalition government in relation to the total number of individuals who were not granted a final protection visa and who had yet to be deported at the end of the period—after tipping a bucket on the previous coalition government—saying that they had a new system, that they were going to fix it. So, in October 2023 the total number of individuals who were not granted a final protection visa and who had yet to be deported at the end of the period was 76,185. That was the number back in October 2023, when the then ministers, before they left the portfolio, gave an indication that they were going to fix the system.

Fast-forward to the latest figures that the Hon. Matt Thistlethwaite provided to this committee in relation to orders moved by former senator Keneally from the Labor Party, who'd previously raised concerns in relation to this issue. In these latest figures the number has grown to 98,979. So, on 5 October 2023 Labor said: 'We're going to fix it. We're going to introduce all sorts of measures to fix it.' And it's now gone up from 76,000 to 98,000, which is 2,000 more than our annual humanitarian intake. So, take some responsibility for that as well, before you throw accusations across the chamber, Senator Ayres.

Let me also refer to the review of Australia's migration system—the discussion paper that was released in March 2023. Let me give you some quotes from this discussion paper:

Our approach to migration planning hasn't properly accounted for the impact of large and uncapped temporary migration on infrastructure. We need a long-term horizon that supports more effective planning of infrastructure, housing and services to meet the needs of all Australian residents.

Those aren't my words; those are the words of the independent reviewers you appointed to have a look at the migration strategy. Yet you've left a vacuum, you've left a void, and extremists have sought to fill that void. So, you take some responsibility, Senator Ayres. Your own review of the system back in March 2023 said—and I absolutely agree—'Smooth and predictable migration enables Australia to plan housing infrastructure (such as schools and hospitals)'. That was back in March 2023. As Senator Pocock has mentioned, a vacuum has been left—a vacuum, a void. Page 42 reads:

If the supply of infrastructure and housing does not keep up with demand created by migration, the quality of infrastructure and housing services may deteriorate, and prices may rise.

The review further reads:

Housing and accommodation in particular is currently a major barrier to attracting and retaining migrants across all visa programs and maintaining a social license for a large scale migration program.

That was in the discussion paper for your own review document, more than two years ago. And then, when the migration strategy was actually released—and it's now nearly two years later—this is what was said:

There is insufficient regard for pressures on housing and infrastructure.

It also said:

We have a strong history of well-managed migration that supports, rather than runs counter to, our housing and infrastructure needs.

It also said:

We have not had a long-term planning process that links with the levers that make migration successful, such as planning for housing, infrastructure and services.

That's what your own strategy document said after the discussion paper, and this was released in December 2023. You've left the void. Page 28 of the government's own strategy reads:

A better managed migration system … can help to manage planned cities and revitalise regional communities. This also requires investment in housing and infrastructure such as schools, hospitals and transport to align with migration levels.

Page 79 reads:

Targeted and well-planned migration will support population planning and help deliver better outcomes for Australia in infrastructure, housing, service delivery and the environment.

What's happened? I want to quote from a very useful paper that was released by Emeritus Professor of Demography Peter McDonald, of the Migration Hub at the Australian National University. I commend that everyone read this paper. I think it's got very useful data. The paper asks the question: how can net migration be brought down to an acceptable level more effectively? It draws a distinction between temporary and permanent migration:

While not often stated, mitigating population ageing is one of the two main rationales of the Australian Migration Program. The other rationale is the filling of skilled labour shortages.

…   …   …   

For 19 successive budgets including the 2024-25 budget, under seven different Prime Ministers beginning with Howard, the Australian Migration Program has been set within the narrow range of 160,000 to 195,000 per annum. The Humanitarian Program has added another 10-25,000 each year. This has been successful bipartisan policy.

In 2009, Peter McDonald and Jeromey Temple were asked by the then Department of Immigration and Citizenship to estimate the level of net overseas migration that would optimise the growth rate of GDP per capita through its impact on population ageing (McDonald and Temple 2010).

The result provided was in the form of a range: 160,000 to 220,000 per annum, thus confirming the level that had been applied by successive governments. Importantly, McDonald and Temple demonstrated that there were diminishing returns to scale—as the level of migration increased, its relative impact on the growth rate of GDP per capita fell. Above 220,000, net migration served to increase the population while doing little to mitigate population ageing. As stated above, successive governments have maintained the size of the permanent migration program within this range, and it seems that they have been satisfied that the skilled shortage rationale has been fulfilled adequately by applying the 160,000 to 220,000 range.

This paper also raises a number of issues in relation to the relationship between net overseas migration and the size of the permanent migration program. It also deals with issues in relation to temporary visas and whether or not there has been a practice of people on particular temporary visas engaging in visa hopping. It's also raising another issue, which is:

By far the largest category of new permanent residents, about 100,000 per annum are partners—partners of skilled immigrants in the Skilled Stream and partners of Australian citizens and permanent residents in the Family Stream, who are not tested for their skills …

And so it goes on. I really do commend that paper to those who are listening to this debate and who want to obtain a greater appreciation of the relevant issues in relation to Australia's migration policy, because I found it incredibly helpful.

In conclusion, I do not support blaming immigrants or migrants for the issues we're facing today. I think it's wrong, I think it's divisive, and I think it tears at our social fabric. I do support having a reasoned, considered debate in relation to the issue. I think we need to have that debate. As I said earlier today, if the debate is not had, extreme elements will fill or seek to fill the vacuum, and that's something we must guard against. It genuinely grieves me that we're in the position that we have found ourselves in over the course of the day.

In relation to that issue, Senator Askew has moved an amendment in the name of Senator Cash calling for an amendment to the resolution, because we simply cannot support a resolution which does not make it clear that we are talking about government policy. We are talking about government policy, and we should be very careful in relation to the framing of these discussions to include any words that could, in any way, send a signal that people are actually to blame when they come to this country.