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

I rise to speak in relation to the Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018 and say at the outset that the coalition will be opposing this bill. The issue of immigration is extraordinarily complicated. Whilst I note that Senator Roberts said that the question to be put to the Australian people has been amended since the previous iteration of this bill, the fact of the matter is that a plebiscite process—in the context of such a complicated, multifaceted issue where we need to consider the needs of our cities and metropolitan areas, our regional centres, our rural communities and our remote communities—is simply inappropriate.

It's an impossible process to undertake in order to deliver a meaningful policy outcome that would be in the national interest. I think it's gravely mistaken. To be clear, the coalition believes that the current rate of immigration is too high. There's no question about that. The coalition believes that. I can give you a few benchmarks in that regard. Up to 31 March 2025, the net overseas migration rate on an annual basis was approximately 316,000. That's 100,000 higher than the 10-year average before the COVID-19 pandemic. It's about 90,000 higher than what the government is forecasting—and I emphasise 'forecasting'—for the three years after the current financial year, and it is also about 80,000 higher than what the Centre for Population within Treasury is forecasting on a long-term basis.

So, even though the net overseas migration rate has come down from that huge 500,000-plus figure in the first year of the Albanese government—via the 400,000-plus figure to over 300,000—it is still too high. There is no question about that. The rate of immigration is a matter of grave concern to the Australian people, and the coalition is working on policy principles to address this issue. We will do that. We will do it in the national interest so that Australia, under a coalition government, will have an immigration policy that is in the national interest and meets the requirements of Australia and all Australians—Australians living in our metropolitan areas, our regional areas, our rural areas and our remote areas. We are committed to that policy framework.

In relation to the issue of housing supply—and I note that, within Senator Roberts' team, there is someone with on-the-ground building capacity—I give you this figure. Have a look at appendix E in the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council's State of the housing system 2025 report on housing supply. Please have a look at this figure. It's shocking. In the 2018-19 year—and your member may well have been building houses, contributing to this figure, then—the number of dwelling completions in Australia was approximately 215,000. That was back in 2018-19. Fast forward to 2023-24, and the figure was 176,000. So we actually completed 215,000 dwellings in 2018-19, but we could complete only 177,000 so many years later when the population had grown. So there's no doubt there's a supply issue. Of course demand needs to be considered as well, but there is a supply issue. Those figures are appalling.

There are a number of issues which feed into that. They include the fact that we don't have enough tradies. I've met with the housing institute of Australia and Master Builders. Just in our own home state of Queensland, Senator Roberts, there's a shortage of 7,000 plumbers. There are serious questions to ask as to how we got ourselves into this position, but it is a reality.

It is also a reality that people in the building industry, in property development, are being strangled by red tape, and the cost to build a house or an apartment, a dwelling, is exacerbated by hundreds of thousands of dollars in terms of all the regulatory red tape. So that's an issue. Where my office is located, in Springfield—and Senator Roberts will know where Springfield is—there is vacant land already zoned for high density housing. But it is impossible at the moment to build dwellings—even with the current housing supply shortage—at a cost, with a margin, to make it profitable. So we have a housing construction issue, a housing supply issue—there is no doubt about that—and it needs to be addressed.

In relation to that report I referred to, I do suggest that colleagues have a look at section 5.5 of that National Housing Supply and Affordability Council report on the state of housing supply in Australia, because it deals with three different scenarios. In one scenario, population growth—and I'm talking about the rates of population growth—increases by more than 15 per cent above the current baseline, and we will have a housing supply shortage at the end of the National Housing Accord period. It analyses the baseline growth in population. If we continue on the baseline population growth, we will have a housing supply shortage at the end of the housing accord period. The only scenario which has been contemplated by the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council under which there is a surplus of housing supply—and this is based on their independent model—is one where the rate of population growth falls by 15 per cent. That is the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council's own analysis, and that needs to be carefully considered. I recommend that all colleagues look at that.

I want to make some comments in relation to the concept, theory or principle that we can have net zero overseas migration. Net overseas migration is the difference between arrivals and departures. That may sound like a pretty obvious statement—I appreciate that—and I'm not seeking to overly simplify it. You've got to look at both sides of the equation: arrivals and departures. We are not North Korea. If someone wants to leave this country at any stage, they can leave this country. We don't have control with respect to people who are here lawfully, including Australian citizens, deciding to leave the country. We do have control—and Senator Roberts touched upon this—in terms of dealing with people who don't have a lawful right to be here. But every year there are tens of thousands of Australian citizens who decide to go overseas to work, or for whatever reason, and there are permanent residents and temporary visa holders who leave. We don't have control over that.

There are also elements relating to arrivals where we have either no control or very limited control, or it's questionable as to what control we should have. I'll go through a number of categories. There's the family reunion scheme. I believe strongly in the family unit. I believe strongly that the family unit is the foundation stone of Australian society. I also believe if an Australian citizen has gone overseas, has worked, has fallen in love and has had children then they should be able to bring their family back to Australia. In fact, under our Migration Act they have a right to bring their family back to Australia. The only condition is that it is a genuine relationship. Of course, that should be administered. But are we saying we're going to put in a cap or in some way prevent Australians from reuniting with their family in Australia? Is that being proposed? Tens of thousands of arrivals each year fall into that category of partners and children of Australian citizens, so if that's not being proposed I'm not sure how you are going to influence that number. I believe those families should have the right to be reunited.

The second category I want to talk about are New Zealand citizens who comprise over 700,000 of the figure of temporary visa holders in Australia that Senator Roberts referred to. They are categorised that way. At the moment, we have a trans-Tasman agreement under which New Zealanders have the right to come to Australia and Australians have the right to go to New Zealand. The research indicates that when the job market is soft in New Zealand, which it currently is, there are tens of thousands of New Zealanders who come to Australia for higher wages and to get work. That's under the trans-Tasman agreement. Australians have reciprocal rights to go to New Zealand, but of course if the labour market is soft in New Zealand then not as many Australian are going to go to New Zealand as New Zealanders are going to come to Australia. In recent years, that has made a substantial contribution to net overseas migration. What is proposed with respect to New Zealand-Australia immigration? We have no answer to that.

Governments of both persuasions have also entered into various treaties with countries all over the world which provide for work and holiday visas and other visas which provide opportunities for Australians and people within those countries to spend time in each other's country, to build people-to-people links and to build relationships between our country and other countries. They are treaty obligations. Most of them have limited caps. These treaties have been entered into over the years on a very regular basis, so that is an issue in terms of looking at those treaty obligations and what can and can't be managed.

In terms of skills, we have enduring skills shortages in a number of key areas. We have shortages in particular in our regional and rural communities. When I've been speaking to stakeholders across all industries, they plead with me: 'Please don't prevent us from getting the skills we need in order to keep our agricultural operations running. Don't prevents us from getting the skills we need to run our businesses and generate wealth and prosperity for the Australian people.' This is a complicated issue.

Finally, I want to make some points with respect to how the Labor government has managed this issue. I think it is absolutely appalling that when I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship what his target was with respect to net overseas migration, or the permanent-migration program beyond the current year, they gave no answer. All we have at the moment in the budget are forecasts provided by the Centre for Population within the Department of the Treasury, which even the Department of Home Affairs, who implement the visa settings, won't confirm they agree with. It's totally dysfunctional. There is no long-term planning, there is no medium-term planning, there is no liaison with the states and territories around Australia, there is no coherent explanation as to how the government is taking into account the housing pressures, infrastructure pressures and pressure on government services. We're getting nothing, absolutely nothing.

When the government released its permanent-migration program numbers for the current year, it did so in a media release with three sentences and fewer than 100 words. That's all we got. It was only through questions that we asked in Senate estimates that we found out the government had abandoned multi-year planning in relation to the permanent-migration program. The review that was taken into the migration strategy in 2023 called for multi-year planning, called for long-term planning that took into account that the time line to develop major infrastructure is approximately 10 years. They've abandoned that medium-term planning, they've abandoned that long-term planning. There is no planning because the minister says he wants to be flexible. It's not good enough, and this is one of the reasons why surveys, including the most recent survey from the Scanlon Foundation, which does a mapping social cohesion report every year, have found in their most recent surveys that there is such a high rate of dissatisfaction amongst the Australian people with respect to the rate of immigration.

In summary, the coalition believes that net overseas migration is too high. When you look at a number of benchmarks, it's clearly too high. We believe there needs to be longer term planning, but we need to also be cognisant of how complicated the issue is.