Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 May 2026:

The impact of high immigration levels on the Australian economy, with particular reference to:

(a) home prices, rental prices and rental vacancy rates;

(b) the wage price index;

(c) the inflation rate;

(d) labour productivity growth;

(e) the accuracy of government projections on immigration numbers; and

(f) any other related matters.

This is a motion without emotion. One Nation is proposing an inquiry into the impact of high, mass immigration levels on the Australian economy. We just want the pure facts and the data to be communicated to the Australian public—no labels, no smears, just data and facts. We love data. Over the weekend, tens of thousands of Australians marched, asking for an answer on this question: what is the cost of adding millions of people to Australia's population in just a few short years? That is their question. I will repeat it. What is the cost of adding millions of people to Australia's population in just a few short years?

If the data shows that immigration is our strength, then let the Australian people see for themselves. Let those cards fall where they may. I can guarantee what you'll hear from the Greens and Labor on this sensible inquiry. I could almost write their speeches for them; they are so predictable. If you have a question about whether allowing around 2.4 million new arrivals into the country over four years has an impact on the country, that's a question. If you wonder whether that has an impact on our schools, our rent prices, the congestion on our roads, the healthcare system and our house prices, guess what? The Greens and Labor say that asking those questions makes you a racist and a Neo-Nazi worthy of slurs, smears and labels.

The Greens say that asking whether having 2.9 million temporary visa holders in the country right now, taking up to one million homes, is 100 per cent in our country's interest makes you a racist and a Neo-Nazi. Welcome to millions of Australians that you're tagging as racist Neo-Nazis. The Greens and Labor are lying. They are scared of the conversation because the facts are devastating. The Greens and Labor try to shut down the conversations, smearing everyone as a racist, a Neo-Nazi, a xenophobe. Every time you hear Labor, the Greens and even some Liberals trying to shut down this conversation, calling anyone who loves this country a racist, remember what we're actually voting on here.

This is what my motion proposes. I have moved that the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 May 2026. The terms of reference specify:

The impact of high immigration levels on the Australian economy, with particular reference to:

(a) home prices, rental prices and rental vacancy rates;

(b) the wage price index;

(c) the inflation rate;

(d) labour productivity growth;

(e) the accuracy of government projections on immigration numbers; and

(f) any other related matters.

That's it—no emotion, no judgements. We just want the facts and figures so the public is informed. I'll read that again—the scope:

The impact of high immigration levels on the Australian economy, with particular reference to—

six specified factors. If you want to argue for the current program of mass immigration, show us your data. I say to the Greens and Labor: prove to the Australian people that having millions upon millions of extra people in the country in the middle of a housing crisis and a cost-of-living crisis is justified, is necessary and makes sense.

Calling tens of thousands of Australians—who came out and marched for our living standards and to ensure that we hand on a better country to our children—'racist' is a disgraceful slur. I'll say that again: calling tens of thousands of Australians—who came out and marched for our living standards and to ensure that we hand on a better country to our children—'racist' is a disgraceful slur. Every senator in this chamber should be ashamed to repeat it. Yet you will.

Let's have a look at terms of reference (a) home prices, rental prices and vacancy rates. This motion is purely about the numbers. That's it. Let's look at the numbers. We know from Home Affairs data that, excluding the 300,000-plus tourists and crew, there are 2.9 million temporary migrants in the country right now, known as temporary visa holders—more than 10 per cent of our population. This excludes millions of permanent visa holders, or permanent residents, as they are known. The Bureau of Statistics says that the average household size in Australia is 2½ people per dwelling. That means, on average data, the temporary migrants in this country could be taking up to one million houses in Australia.

Let's have a think about the effect that might be having on the rental market. As of July, there are just 38,000 rental vacancies in the entire country. The national rental vacancy rate is at just 1.2 per cent, massively under the three per cent rate that's considered healthy—less than half. In Brisbane the rental vacancy rate is 0.9 per cent, in Perth it's 0.7 per cent, in Adelaide it's 0.8 per cent, in Darwin it's 0.5 per cent and in Hobart it's 0.6 per cent. There's a demonstrable and strong link between the rate of non-permanent migrants and rent increases. I can provide the reference if you need it. If your rent has gone up in the last four years, as the mass migration program continued, there are 2.9 million reasons why. Again, I call on Labor and the Greens: if you have data to debate these numbers, put them forward at the inquiry. Don't just label or slur everyone; deal with the facts. I know it's not easy for you, but deal with the facts.

Regarding the wage price index, the impact of high immigration is felt on the employment market. Extra retail spending from new arrivals increases employment in the retail sector, partially offsetting the job loss from online sales, which are increasingly being fulfilled through regional fulfilment centres using a high degree of automation. Since the Albanese government was elected, real household per capita spending has fallen by eight points. Australian households have less—a hell of a lot less. Are we dividing the national pie into smaller and smaller pieces because the economy cannot grow as fast as our population is? The data suggests this is the case. Let's find out.

The bad news in this picture is that immigrants provide a pool of labour. They are happy to take an ABN—an Australian Business Number—and work fee-for-service, often meaning low fees and low service. This undermines employment conditions and award wages that have protected everyday Australians for generations. This is apparently okay with the unions, who never question the erosion of wages coming from a large influx of new arrivals into the labour market—the former party of the worker. The evidence for this statement is found in the increase in ABNs during the Albanese government, with hundreds of thousands of new ABNs issued to new arrivals. These people—

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you want to continue your conversation?

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, I couldn't hear.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you address the Greens, please, Acting Deputy President? They just said that they were trying to block out my contribution.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, I didn't hear that. If that's the case, I will say to colleagues that I urge we all be heard in silence. Thank you.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The evidence for this statement is found in the increase in ABNs during the Albanese government, with hundreds of thousands of new ABNs issued to new arrivals. These people then work and issue an invoice, which includes GST; keep all the money and send a chunk overseas—an $11 billion a year chunk, mind you—and go home or, otherwise, turn into someone else, another ABN.

The measure the ATO uses is not ABNs issued. No, instead the ATO uses active ABNs—people who actually submit their BAS statement and pay the GST they've collected. Why doesn't the ATO tell us how many ABNs are outstanding? What a great way of hiding the problem. Cheating the system allows that person to work for less yet have more. They work for less yet retain more. They're not contributing taxes. How many jobs and how much income tax and GST on those earning are lost to this scam every year? I would suggest it's in the millions. The inquiry should ask the same question. How many people who were marching on the street to protect their livelihood, and those of their kids in future, are funding these people?

The Reserve Bank has advanced the argument that low-skilled arrivals reduce wages for our low-skilled workers, while skilled migration grows the pie for everyone. Skilled migration. I'm a migrant. I've got nothing against migration, but we have to have it under control, and not mass migration. A New Zealand paper looked at this in depth and found the same thing, with the skill level at which the person makes a positive contribution being either a trade qualification or a university degree. The study found the difference in earnings persisted across their entire working life, suggesting language and culture actually matter. That's what the people were saying in the streets of the capital cities and other provincial cities yesterday. Research from Denmark indicates migrants being paid lower wages persists across multiple generations. Clearly, if a company can pay lower wages or lower 'contractor payments' to migrants, it will. If it needs to force them to get an ABN to receive that lower income, it will. And, if the ATO lets them do that because this is not being policed, it will. This is a serious issue that the economics committee must inquire into.

Let's have a look at labour productivity growth. The government pretends it supports higher productivity, yet they'll never mention migration in relation to productivity. This is despite immigration having a direct impact on productivity through capital shallowing. My colleague Senator Whitten is going to address this point in detail, so stay tuned for his explanation of why need to look at term (d) in the terms of reference: labour productivity growth.

Next, (e), the accuracy of government projections on immigration numbers. This term of reference, in relation to the accuracy of government projections on immigration numbers, is vital. For the last five years, the Australian public has been completely gaslit on immigration forecasts. In every budget, the Department of the Treasury has repeatedly released immigration forecasts that were patently wrong. They're either so grossly incompetent in making these forecasts that Australia should be terrified these people are in charge of our economy, or they deliberately hid the extent of the mass immigration program from Australia.

In 2022-23, Treasury said we would expect 235,000 people to arrive under net overseas migration. We got 535,520 people arrive, more than double—225 per cent above. That's a pretty big error. In 2023-24, Treasury said we could expect 235,000 people to arrive; 445,640 arrived, almost double. In 2024-25, Treasury forecast net overseas migration would be 260,000. They then increased that to 340,000 halfway through the year. Data indicates the number for the year may be well over 400,000. Finance columnist Alan Kohler of the ABC lays it quite out well. He said that, on top of the forecasts, which are already extremely historically high:

… at least 800,000 more people came to live in Australia over the past four years than Treasury anticipated. That's more than three extra Hobarts.

That's been added to Australia's population over just four years above what the Treasury forecast. That's not the number of the incoming migrants; that is the size of the error—800,000, three Hobarts, in error. How the hell can people plan around the country? That's an unexpected shortfall of 320,000 houses above Treasury's forecasts.

The conduct of the Treasury demonstrates the government is unwilling to have an honest discussion with the Australian public about how many will come into this country each year. Thats what this inquiry is for—to lay out the data and the numbers and have an honest conversation with the Australian public about what the hell's going on. That's all we want. To the people who marched on the weekend: thank you for standing up for the country and drawing attention to this. These people would not be interested if it weren't for you. Thank you.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to contribute to this discussion. I'm appalled that, after the displays yesterday of members of far-right Neo-Nazi groups and sovereign citizens declaring that the cop killer Dezi Freeman was some type of a martyr and hero, we get into this chamber today and hear that rubbish from One Nation. I'm sorry, but there are two dead policemen. Their families are suffering. The communities that they live in are shell-shocked. Rather than being the bigger people in this place, we have One Nation coming in here and legitimising it. It's disgusting and it's revolting. One Nation have created their entire political—

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order on relevance. We had very terrible murders of two policemen before the marches. It had nothing do to do with the marches. It's ridiculous—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts, you don't have a point of order.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have not heard the Leader of One Nation or any members of One Nation in this place condemn the cold-blooded murder of those police officers and condemn the actions of that group.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts? You have a point of order and not a debate, I hope.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's on relevance. We have condemned the heinous murder of two policemen.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take that as a comment.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Coming in here today to legitimise the glorification of this cop killer should be beneath any of us. Sadly, it's not. This is because One Nation have built their entire political foundation on fearmongering, division and not just pseudo-law but pseudo-maths, pseudo-science and now pseudo-economics. The only reason that One Nation exists is that they continue to whip up fear and division in our communities. They're like a toxic algae that feeds on this fear and division. They're like a disease that loves preying on the weak.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young, just resume your seat. Senator Whitten, on a point of order?

Tyron Whitten (WA, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't like being referred to as a disease or toxic algae.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order, but I will remind senators that if we are reflecting on fellow senators I will have to call you out. At this stage, Senator Hanson-Young, you have the call.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are members of our community who are worried about the cost of housing, the cost of living and how they're going to cover next month's bills, and dealing with those issues in a responsible way, holding government to account where they need to be held to account and asking questions of bureaucrats that are legitimate and need to be asked is what this place is meant to do. But using vulnerable members of our community and migrants as a scapegoat for inequality is pathetic. It's cheap politics and it's weak. That's what One Nation does, and that's what this motion is all about.

Now, I would have thought that, after this weekend's rally, the display and glorification of people who have killed police officers and the glorification of Neo-Nazis, there would be some reflection on what this is doing to our community and our society, but the only reflection we seem to getting from One Nation today is their rubbing their hands in glee and their wanting more of it. They are feeding on this nastiness, on this division, on this fear. I mean, if they had it their way we would have here in Australia the race riots that the US have had. They'd be cheering it on. We are not America. Australia is built on multiculturalism. Our nation is diverse, but you can't take that for granted. We can't take it for granted. It is something that you nurture and look after and protect. We don't always agree on everything—of course not. That's why we're a democracy. We are able to debate things. We should be able to debate things without sinking to the level of dividing people by the colour of their skin or where they were born.

This brings me to the person in the other place, Mr Bob Katter, who I think today showed a total lack of judgement in doubling-down on his aggressive threat of violence to an Australian journalist for simply asking about his immigration policies and his background. Now, I put it to you that, if this was any other member in this place, this wouldn't be just laughed off as, 'Bob Katter; that's him.' Mr Katter's behaviour on Friday, threatening violence to a journalist for simply asking a question, is unacceptable. He should either apologise or resign. The idea of doubling-down on this means he's missed the point. I would have thought that, since the weekend's horror show, he may have reflected a little bit on his own contribution to whipping up these fears and division, but he clearly hasn't. Tonight I say that Mr Katter should apologise to that journalist or he should step down. If we start in this country down the road where politicians can threaten violence at journalists for asking pesky questions they don't like or individuals shooting cops dead is not called out but, in fact, glorified, then we are heading down a very, very dangerous path. I don't for one moment suggest that any one party or any one person in this place has it right all the time. I don't believe we do. But I do think that, with the incidents of the last week—whether it is the shooting of innocent police officers, the threatening of journalists or the glorification of neo-Nazi politics on our streets—we have a moment right now where we have to think about what kind of country we want to be—and, I tell you what, it's not this. This is not the type of future we want for Australia. I respectfully ask One Nation to stop using vulnerable people and migrants as whipping boys and girls and scapegoats.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We often speak in this chamber about economic growth as though GDP alone tells the story of our nation's success, but GDP is not a measure of whether young Australians can own a home, start a family or build a secure life. It counts money changing hands and it counts population growth. It doesn't count the stress of housing insecurity or the heartbreak of delaying having children because people just can't afford a place big enough to raise them.

When the fundamentals of ordinary life become unattainable for the next generation, economic policy is failing at its most basic purpose. Over the past three years Labor has brought in over one million migrants. Unless there is respite, we will approach two million in five years. This includes 536,000 in 2022-23, the highest intake in our history, and 446,000 in 2023-24. To put that into perspective, we've added the equivalent of the entire population of Brisbane in just three years but we haven't built a city like Brisbane to house, feed, employ and educate these additional people. That is population scale growth on a scale that our housing market, our infrastructure, our planning system, our hospitals, our schools and our communities are not prepared for. Even in the 2024-25 budget papers, there's an admission that net overseas migration will remain above the long run average for years to come, and the result is a housing market in crisis—a market that caters for those young people who are fortunate enough to have parents or grandparents wealthy enough to help them out with a deposit.

In the early 2000s, the house-price-to-income ratio sat at around four. Today it is over eight nationally. In Sydney it is among the least affordable in the world, now exceeding 14 times the median wage. It means teachers, nurses, police officers and clerical workers can't afford to live anywhere close to where they work. The median dwelling-price-to-income ratio nationwide was 9.6 in 2000 and has jumped to 16.4 in 2024. Economist Alan Kohler has warned that if the ratio had stayed where it was in 2000—around four—Australian families would be paying half as much for their mortgages as they are today. Instead, mortgage repayments now chew up over 50 per cent of household incomes compared with 36 per cent two decades ago. The median Sydney house price has doubled from $680,000 in 2014 to about $1.4 million today. This is not sustainable. It is shutting a generation out of homeownership entirely.

The social impacts go even further. As Ross Gittins recently posed, have we arrested the development of our young? Danielle Wood, Jim Chalmers' own head of the Productivity Commission, has warned that Australia is in danger of breaking the generational bargain—the promise that each generation would live better than the one before. The statistics are sobering. The proportion of young Australians not yet married has doubled from 26 per cent to 53 per cent. The median age of first marriages has risen from 27 to 34. Among 25- to 39-year-olds, the proportion living as a couple has collapsed from over half to just one-fifth. A Deloitte analysis of the census found that more than half of Australians aged between 18 and 25 now even believe they are unlikely to ever have children. These are not just lifestyle choices. These are economic constraints forcing people to delay or abandon entirely the most fundamental decision of adulthood. And let's be honest about who benefits and who loses.

High immigration feeds the interests of big business, which wants more workers and more consumers to keep driving that economy. It feeds big universities, which rely heavily on international student revenue. And it feeds big government, which grows larger with every extra million people to regulate and serve. So that's who benefits. But the costs of these policy settings are borne by young Australians locked out of homeownership, by young couples delaying marriage and children and by young families struggling to pay rent or save a deposit while prices climb faster than they could ever possibly catch up on.

Every child not born today is another job and another taxpayer that needs to be filled by skilled migration over the next 20 years. We're drifting towards a society where homeownership depends entirely on whether your parents can help you out, where homeownership increasingly comes from inheritance, not from hard work, and where the idea of starting a family depends less on aspirational love than on whether you can even afford a house with a backyard. Ross Gittins, again, has written, 'A society that tells its young people they cannot buy a home unless their parents are rich is a society that's lost its way.' Herein lies the irony at the heart of the debate.

We're told we need high immigration because the birthrate is too low, but the birthrate is falling partly because housing costs are too high, because family formation is delayed further each year because young Australians can't get on with ordinary life. We're using migration to fix a problem that migration itself is making worse and that—

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not evidence based.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to be really clear that this is not an argument against migration. Migration has built modern Australia, and, if you are not Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, then you're all migrants—

Jana Stewart (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Always was, always will be!

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

whether your family came here five generations ago or five weeks ago. Migration has brought the skills, diversity and energy that have made us the prosperous—

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You don't get to walk both sides of the road on this.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Colleagues, as much as I'm loath to depress debate, the interjections are consistent and I will ask that the senator be heard in silence.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Migration in the 20th century achieved great things, like the Snowy Mountains Scheme, but it came with great sacrifice from the migrants themselves, many of whom came here to work, living in camps and dongas while they were built. Entrepreneurial migrants from across the globe have built this great country. I was in Mandurah last weekend, speaking to two young men from the Punjab who'd chosen to buy a business in this country town in WA and raise their families there. They were excited about the opportunity that our country provided them. They made a point of discussing with me, in this small-town conversation, the common values that they shared with Australia and that not all migrants do share those common values and want to see a prosperous, sustainable and sovereign Australia going forward and that we do need to be careful about who comes to this country, how many come to this country and where they live.

So having a rational, respectful conversation through a Senate inquiry of our economics committee, whose terms of reference are quite benign, should be welcomed. Then, if you don't agree with Senator Roberts's motion, you can bring witnesses to that inquiry and have the open debate—it's public—in a respectful way, chaired by whoever's chairing the economics committee today. I'm sure they'd do a fabulous job. There's nothing to be afraid of in having this debate. It says more about those opposed to this motion that they're concerned that there's something nefarious about what the impact is. Let's understand the impact so we can stop having these rhetorical arguments about the heavy migration impact that Labor's imposed on our community.

I believe that migration must be calibrated to the nation's capacity—its capacity to build housing; its capacity to provide infrastructure, water and roads; and its capacity to ensure that young Australians aren't pushed aside in their own country. Economic growth that drives GDP up while homeownership, family formation and fertility rates fall is growth that is failing the very people it should serve. The question for parliament is simple. Do we want a country where the next generation can own a home, start a family and get on with ordinary life? If we can't deliver the basics then all of us are failing in the most basic of responsibilities that we have—to actually leave the next generation better off than the last.

At in Western Australia at the National Party state conference this weekend I said, 'When you can't expect to partner, to get a home and to have some kids and do all the normal things that have meant humanity has grown, prospered and progressed over centuries and millennia, we really do have a problem, and we shouldn't actually be scared about having the conversation, no matter how much certain senators detest One Nation.' The actual substantive motion itself is quite a sensible debate that's overdue in this country. Instead we're turning to high immigration to actually solve the problems of a birthrate so low. There are deeper cultural problems about not being able to just get on and do regular life. We've got to solve that problem. That's the nut we actually have to crack.

Let's start first with a sensible migration number, a number that we can actually have the capacity as a country to service, so that we're not getting waiting queues in our public hospitals, that we can deliver high-quality public education to everyone, that you don't have to wait for an hour and half in your car to get to work because you can't afford to live near your—

I know WA's very different. You've got beautiful roads over there, but come to the east coast, Senator Steele-John. If you're living in the peri-urban sections of Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane because you cannot afford a house if you're a teacher, a nurse, a police officer or a bank teller, then there is a problem. I'm happy to introduce you to any of these people who struggle with this. We need to make sure that people who share our values—such as individual liberty and dignity; every person's equal worth; freedom of faith and expression, including the freedom not to believe; the right to speak and associate peacefully; upholding the law, where we actually have one law for all citizens accountable to the courts; democratic self-government; laws made by elected parliaments, not by religious or secular codes outside democracy; the fair go of mutual respect, tolerance, empathy for the disadvantaged and a quality of opportunity for everyone; English as our unifying national language; and equal opportunities for all, regardless of where you live, your ethnicity or your national origin—and who want to help build a safe, sustainable and prosperous Australia should be welcomed. But we should have a right and indeed a responsibility to the next generation as a country to say, 'No; those who denigrate and despise those values are not welcome here.'

In a country as developed, welcoming, kind and rich as Australia, we're top of the pops for people from all over the world who seek a better life for their families. So it is beholden to those of us who hold the government benches and the immigration portfolio, who get to make these decisions, to make sure that the people that we welcome in to help us build this country share those values.

We have the opportunity to have a choice. We want people who love our country as much as we do, who believe that nation-statehood is a thing. Globalists we don't want so much. To be a patriot of Australia, no matter where and how you've come to this place, like the young men from the Punjab I spoke to in Mandurah on the weekend—we actually want to welcome those people, and those who don't share those values can go try and live somewhere else. The National Party will be supporting Senator Roberts's motion so that the Economics Committee can examine these issues in a rational, calm and respectful manner.

Wendy Askew (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to move an amendment which has been circulated in the chamber in the name of Senator Cash in relation to business of the Senate No. 1. I move:

The amended motion would read as follows:

That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 May 2026:

The impact of the failed immigration policies of the Albanese Labor Government high immigration levels on the Australian economy, with particular reference to:

(a) home prices, rental prices and rental vacancy rates;

(b) the wage price index;

(c) the inflation rate;

(d) labour productivity growth;

(e) the accuracy of government projections on immigration numbers; and

(f) any other related matters.

Jana Stewart (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to oppose this disgraceful motion, referral, whatever you want to call it. It's dog whistling dressed up as an inquiry. That's all that it is. It gives a platform to people who want to punch down on migrants. That is what this is. No matter how you might want to dress it up by talking about the numbers, you actually just want to attack migrants.

You want to blame migrants for the lack of housing policy for a decade when those opposite were in charge. If you want to blame somebody for the challenges that we have and the housing crisis, One Nation, all you need to do over there is look to your right. They're all on your right over there on the opposition benches. For a number of years they didn't even have a housing minister, not a single housing minister. They've opposed demand measures, they've opposed supply measures. Anything to do with housing they've opposed and got in the way of, and they failed to do anything in the decade that they were in charge. But, sure, punch down on migrants.

It is motions like the one before the Senate today that fuel hate and division in this country. They fuel the rallies we saw yesterday, which you're over there celebrating, but actually lots of migrants in this country are living in fear right now because of them. You're celebrating that, and it's an absolute disgrace. If you can't see how your motion today and the words that you've used in this place fuel that division and hate, then you're delusional, absolutely delusional.

Australia's story is woven from so many threads: Sudanese nurses, Vietnamese grocers, Indian engineers, Lebanese artists. Migration is not a threat to who we are; it is a gift to our nation. It brings flavour, it brings resilience and it brings innovation. As a First Nations woman in this place, I honour the families who have crossed borders and oceans to build lives here on Aboriginal land. I honour them in this place. Their stories are stitched into our streets, our schools and our hearts. Before any migration, before any colony, this land holds stories older than time. We are absolutely the luckiest of countries—the most successful multicultural country in the world combined with the oldest continuous culture on this planet. What a gift that is! That is something to celebrate, not to protest.

This Labor government has zero tolerance for hate and discrimination in all its forms. This is absolutely a continuation of that. We're a proudly multicultural nation, and every one of us, no matter our heritage, has the right to feel safe and welcome in our community. Motions like this undermine that.

I could absolutely stand in this chamber and read out a bunch of statistics that reflect our balanced migration program. I could talk about our very sound management of the economy that means that the inflation figure now has a two in front of it instead of a six. I could talk about those numbers, but that's absolutely not what this motion is about. It is about stoking fear and division. That's what it's about. It's about blaming migrants for the failure of the opposition to build homes over their decade in power. It's about blaming migrants for the lack of policy by those opposite to help people get into their first homes.

There's a little clue that makes you think this isn't about migration specifically. They've lauded the values of yesterday. If this was really about migration then you wouldn't have seen people from the rallies yesterday attack First Nations people at Camp Sovereignty. We're not migrants to this country last time I checked. We're First Nations people. We've been here for 65,000 years. Those protesters somehow found their way to Camp Sovereignty. It's an absolute disgrace. So don't pretend that this motion is about migration. It's about racism—absolutely.

We reject any movements that are raised on the sidelines out of fear like we saw yesterday. Instead of stoking division like some people in this place, the Albanese government is focused on bringing people together. That's what we stand for. We want an Australia that listens before it speaks, that welcomes before it judges, that heals before it divides, one built not on fear but on fierce love for country, culture and community. We stand for unity in diversity, truth in history and future shaped by care. This is not about politics; it's about people and the kind of nation we want to be.

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

I rise to support business of the Senate motion No. 1. There is no doubt that there are many people in our community who were extremely disappointed by the sight of Neo-Nazis on the steps of the Victorian parliament and with some of the signs and some of the chants that were used by some over the course of the rallies that occurred yesterday. When we discuss these issues in relation to immigration, they must be discussed in a way that is considered, measured and reasoned. When we talk about failures, all of it is a failure of government policy. It's entirely to do with government policy. It is nothing to do with people who have come to this country in good faith. It has everything to do with governments of whatever persuasion at all three levels in relation to building the infrastructure required and coming up with the long-term planning—

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Please respect the rights of Senator Scarr while he's speaking.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to 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.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must say, that was a very considered contribution from Senator Scarr. He's absolutely right that immigration is not to blame for any housing crisis or lack of affordable housing in this country. It is government policy, broadly, that we need to look at.

Immigration hasn't caused our national housing crisis, contrary to what you'll hear from One Nation in here today and contrary to the message going into and coming out of the rallies in Australia on Saturday—that, somehow, immigration is responsible for the housing crisis or the lack of affordable housing in this country. That's just more lies and deception in an age of rampant disinformation. These lies and deception are deliberately spread, peddled by those with agendas, designed to divide us and distract from what has really caused a shortage of housing in Australia and ultimately protect those who benefit the most from economic inequality in our country—the millionaires, the billionaires, right-wing conservative politicians and extremists.

What is responsible, then? It's decades of policy failure by lazy and captured governments who won't reform taxation or planning laws in Australia and who continually ignore underinvestment in much-needed affordable public housing supply. One per cent of taxpayers in Australia own 25 per cent of our investment properties. I'll let that settle in: one per cent of Australian taxpayers own 25 per cent of this nation's investment properties. According to the 2021 census—and we've got a new census coming up soon—over one million homes were unoccupied on the night of the census. The number of homeless people as defined in that census was around 125,000 Australians. That's nearly 10 vacant houses for every person living on the street. That's because tax concessions reward speculation and land banking and, ultimately, the wealthiest in our country.

The Greens are worried about the housing crisis in this country too. We all should be. We've had endless discussions in recent years on how to fix this. But don't point down and beat down on our nation's most vulnerable people when we should be pointing up to the politicians who aren't doing enough and the billionaires, the millionaires and the rich property developers who benefit the most from this debate.

The kind of scapegoating witnessed in here today and on the weekend at these rallies that gave platforms to Neo-Nazis not only endangers our community and cultural identity as a multicultural nation; it serves those in power who benefit the most from our broken system. We can fix that. We can do that in here and we can do that together. Let's put aside the politics that are dividing us, let's come together and let's fix this problem.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am exhausted as a migrant to constantly have to justify my existence in this country. I've been here for 40 years. I came to Australia when I was 12. Here I am at the age of 52 as a parliamentarian in the Australian parliament having to prove my Australianness—having to prove it! For goodness sake, I'm wearing a sprig of wattle on my lapel today. Why? Because it's 1 September, National Wattle Day, a day to celebrate our unity, diversity and resilience. Why wattle? Because there are over a thousand species of wattle and wattle is one of the most resilient plants in our landscape. It can withstand fire after fire after fire and it blooms; it comes back stronger. It's a bit like the story of the waves and waves of migrants to this country.

Since World War II, every wave of migrants, from the Greeks, the Italians, the Jews and the Vietnamese to, now, the South Asians—Indians, Sri Lankans, Malaysians, people of colour like me—have had to be resilient because they've have all encountered xenophobia—all of them. But you would think that, over this passage of time, we would evolve, that we would get better as a country. I do truly believe we are better as a country, but in this chamber, on some days, I have to question that, and today is one of those days.

If there was ever any doubt that the coalition, the Liberals and Nationals, have moved to the hard right, that was dispelled today by their actions and their words. For years they've been flirting with the fringe, and today they got into bed with that fringe. I've seen this movie before. I've seen this movie played over and over again. My sister Senator Stewart, a First Nations woman, knows exactly what I'm talking about because First Nations people have had to endure this since colonisation. It's so normalised for them. It's not normalised for me. It shouldn't be normalised for any migrant in this country.

Cultural diversity is under attack. It's under attack all around the world. There are some places where migrants, even though they've laid down roots and raised children, are being detained and locked up, and some are being deported. That anti-immigrant sentiment may have been normalised once upon a time in our history. And that history wasn't that long ago. It was completely normalised when the White Australia policy was operating in this country. That was revoked in 1973 by a Labor prime minister, Gough Whitlam. Since then, successive governments—Liberal and Labor—have embraced multiculturalism. It's been a pillar of our national economy. Multiculturalism is now woven into the fabric of our country. Once upon a time it was probably okay, historically, to attack diversity. It's certainly not okay now, not when one in two Australians have either been born overseas or have a parent who was born overseas.

I'm not here anymore to justify my existence, to prove my Australianness, to constantly wonder whether I belong or whether I'm pretending. I am here. I am Australian. I am a member of this federal parliament. I don't have to prove to any of you over there that I belong. I belong is what I'm saying. I stamp my foot down and I say I belong. I will wave that Australian flag. What I saw on the weekend was a betrayal. It was disgusting to see what they did to the Australian flag—the flag that our diggers fought under against Nazis.

Sure, we should be able to have a rational debate about migration. Sure, we should be able to do that, but rationality goes out the window when that argument is co-opted by Neo-Nazis, when anti-immigrant sentiment is the business model of One Nation and now the coalition. This place turns the dog whistle into a megaphone. And the people who are impacted are not people like me. It's not me. It's the little kid who's going to school, the kid who wears the hijab, the little Indian kid who plays footy or cricket on the weekend. It's their parents. It's those people who don't have the voice of Senator Ananda-Rajah in the nation's parliament. Those are the people who are impacted. The words spoken in this chamber ricochet around this country, tearing at our social fabric. The words get fired from here, and the impacts are not felt by anyone in this chamber because we're too privileged, but they are acutely felt by people outside the chamber in those communities right around the country.

To weaponise migration is beyond the pale in 2025. We are here. We are part of this country. We contribute. There isn't a single facet of our economy that doesn't depend on the blood, sweat and tears of immigrants. You can't walk into a hospital, an aged-care facility, a childcare facility or any business without seeing migrants. They hold up the sky. Hospitals are like the United Nations. So are aged-care facilities. So are childcare facilities.

Guess what? If you don't have any of those essential, key workers, your economy cannot function. We can't actually build the homes that we need, because the people who are building those homes need other people to look after their children while they are working. Those IT workers who come from places like India, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and so on underpin every single business and government agency in this country. If you take them away, everything grinds to a halt. So be careful what you wish for, One Nation. Be careful what you wish for. You go out there and blow that dog whistle, and the only people who get harmed are all of us—our country.

But you're right: we should be able to have a rational discussion about immigration. You're right: there aren't enough homes. There aren't enough homes not because of migrants; there aren't enough homes because successive governments over the last 40 years have not been building enough homes. It's been utterly neglected. It caught up with us over the pandemic.

I'm exhausted. On the weekend, colleagues, my daughter decided to go into the city—yesterday, in Melbourne. I begged her. I pleaded with my 20-year-old daughter for her to not do that, because of what was going on on the streets of Melbourne. I do track my daughter on her phone. She doesn't like it, but I'm a helicopter mum. I make no apology about that. I did that, and I constantly watched her to make sure she was fine, and then I messaged her. When she was on the train she messaged me and she said, 'Mum, some of these Neo-Nazis are on the train.' I said: 'Go and seek help. Go and sit next to someone of authority. Go and find that person.' She was fine. This is 2025. This should not be happening in modern Australia.

There were people at these rallies who have legitimate grievances. They are concerned about housing. We as a government take those grievances seriously, which is why we are pulling every lever imaginable to solve the housing crisis. There are so many pillars to that portfolio, most of which were actually voted against by the coalition, who stand here and cry crocodile tears and blame migrants while still holding up housing supply. They voted against the Housing Australia Future Fund. They voted against Help to Buy. They then tried to move a disallowance motion last week into Build to Rent. Every step of the way they have blocked passage of housing supply. So don't come in here and pretend that we've all suddenly had amnesia on the Labor side. We haven't.

The bottom line is that the coalition love to pump up the tyres of migrants and multiculturalism. They turn up to citizenship ceremonies. They turn up to festivals, where they might eat a samosa, wear a turban or have a shawl put round their necks. That's multiculturalism, isn't it? Little do they know that migrants think that they are, deep down, a nasty party. Deep down, migrants know that the coalition—the Liberals and the Nationals—don't really like them. That's evident on their benches. Where are the migrants? Where are the people who look like me? I was the member for Higgins. Senator Collins is putting up her hand. Senator Collins, I would love to look like you, but I don't.

Jessica Collins (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not saying you do!

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Liberals and Nationals need to take a long, hard look at themselves. You've just had your backsides handed to you on a platter by the Australian people. They've rejected the direction you're moving in. You need to course-correct. You need to listen to the people, move back to the centre. It's important for this country that we have a decent opposition. It's important for this country that we have an alternative party that is worthy of government. But, if you're not able to do that, people like me will happily come and take your seats. Once we've finished with the Liberal seats, we'll move on to the National seats. One we're finished with the National seats, we'll move to the One Nation seats. All those communities have grievances that only a Labor government is addressing.

Stop using migrants as a political football. Migrants are not the problem; they are part of the solution. If there is a problem with infrastructure and housing then, as a parliament, let's work collaboratively and solve that.

Steph Hodgins-May (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Askew be agreed to. A division having being called, I remind honourable senators that, given it is past 6.30 pm, the division will be deferred until tomorrow.