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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today by me and by Senator Paterson.

I asked a number of very simple questions for which it's reasonable to expect the government has an answer. I asked the government what its short-, medium- and long-term targets are for permanent migration and net overseas migration. I asked these questions in the context of great concern in the Australian community around levels of migration. There was a poll released in the Australian earlier today, and there was also a poll released by the Scanlon Foundation in its social cohesion mapping report, which it puts out every year. In that report the Scanlon Foundation found that 51 per cent of Australians believe that current immigration rates are too high. It was in that context that I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to simply advise us what the government's short-term, medium-term or long-term targets or ranges are with respect to permanent migration and net overseas migration. And what did we hear? No answer. They refuse to give an answer. They refuse to give a figure. They refuse to give a range.

I asked this question because the relevant minister, Minister Tony Burke, was on ABC's Insiders, and he was asked the same question by David Speers. David Speers asked him, 'Are immigration rates too high?' The minister said, 'Well, they're coming down to appropriate levels,' and then David Speers asked, 'What is an appropriate level?' and Minister Tony Burke refused to give an answer, refused to give a figure, refused to even give a target range, and that is the issue. There is a complete lack of communication with the Australian people with respect to immigration, including immigration levels, in the context of great community concern regarding immigration levels, and it's just not good enough.

I then asked a supplementary question as to multiyear planning with respect to permanent migration. You would think that the government would have a multiyear plan with respect to immigration levels. In fact, in the government's own immigration strategy that was released in December 2023, they say:

New commitment:

Plan migration over a longer-term horizon to better manage the migration intake, with greater state and territory collaboration …

The Government will develop a principles-based, multi-year planning model for permanent migration, to improve collaboration with states and territories on migration settings.

…   …   …

The multi-year planning model will extend the planning horizon of the permanent Migration Program beyond its current 12 months and enable a better planning effort to meet the strategic, structural and long-term challenges that we face as nation and in our cities and regions.

It makes sense. This is the government's own migration strategy, released in December 2023.

What we've found is that the government has abandoned that multiyear planning approach, where it actually provides figures going out not just for the current year but for years 2, 3 and 4. It abandoned that approach. It did not communicate that to anyone. It just abandoned it. It was only after the opposition raised it in estimates that the minister, on the same ABC Insiders program, was forced to explain. And what was his answer for abandoning a multiyear planning approach? Flexibility. He wants flexibility. I ask everyone listening to this debate—with respect to something as important as immigration, in terms of all three levels of government having to plan and coordinate, and with respect to housing supply, infrastructure, service delivery, you've got to have a plan. You've got to have a medium-term plan and a long-term plan, but the government doesn't have any. It has abandoned any attempt to have a medium-term or long-term plan.

Lastly, on transparency, now more than ever Australians need their government to be transparent with respect to immigration policy—now more than ever. And when Tony Burke, the minister, released the permanent migration program for the current year, he put out a media release that had three sentences—less than 100 words. That was the explanation he gave to the Australian people —no explanation with respect to how housing supply, infrastructure or service delivery were being considered. It is not good enough.

Josh Dolega (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of questions asked by coalition senators Scarr and Paterson. On this side of the chamber, we actually value migrants, we value migration, and we welcome the contribution that they make to our society. I strongly believe that we are better off as a country because of the contribution that migrants bring to our society.

Unfortunately, there are some on the opposite side—and I won't make a general comment because I do genuinely believe that not all of those on the other side of politics try to use migration and immigration as a way to divide us and to pin people against each other. It's really disappointing to see people celebrating in the name of being patriots or whatever dog whistling that they're up to. They drape an Australian flag around each other and talk about migration, and they try to say that we shouldn't be letting people come into the country. Well, I seriously challenge that, and I seriously take issue with using our national flag in a way that is to divide rather than to celebrate each other and to welcome people to our community. When migrants come to this country, they often come to regional areas, like Tasmania and Hobart, where I have had the great pleasure of living for several years. You see people and talk to people, and you think, 'They only want to come here, and they want to make a contribution to our way of life and to make our country better.'

When it comes to the migration numbers, migration numbers peaked in the 2022-23 year, at around 538,000 after the peak of COVID and once the borders reopened. As you would imagine, people started to come back. People wanted to come back and study; people wanted to come back to this great place. Why wouldn't you want to come here? It's the best place in the world. Ever since then and since the steps that this government has been taking, we have seen the migration numbers start to decline. In the 12 months to March 2025, it was down to 315,000, which is 40 per cent less compared to that peak.

When it comes to migrants, they have a lot of important roles. They come here and do a lot of the important work. These are some of the most cherished people in our country. They are doctors, nurses and tradies. They bring valuable skills to our country, and we're in the middle of a skills shortage. We're in the middle of a housing supply crisis. These crises didn't happen by accident. They happened by—well, let's just say—neglect from those opposite. They didn't have a housing minister for a lot of their decade in office. We've since taken steps to create paths for people to get skills in this country such as our fee-free TAFE, to allow people to get the skills, but migrants complement these policies. Migrants come in, and they bring specialised skills to assist with some of the shortages. I know we need to build more houses. The Housing Australia Future Fund is designed for that. It's just a shame that those opposite and the Greens again teamed up together, like they have in Tasmania, and blocked housing. That's a real shame. That's an absolute shame because—without being delayed by several years—we would have had a lot more housing built under the Housing Future Fund.

I might touch on the questions from Senator Paterson in relation to the interest rates. When we came to government, inflation was over six per cent. That, again, was after a decade of neglect and a decade of coalition policy— (Time expired)

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to start by saying I really regret the contribution made by Senator Dolega and the offensive imputations that were made in relation to coalition senators and members. It now seems, according to Labor, that it is an offence to drape the Australian flag and be proud of our flag.

Josh Dolega (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't say that at all.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take that interjection, Senator Dolega. That is exactly what you said. You criticised some of us on this side of politics for having the temerity to drape the Australian flag around us, to be proud of our country.

Josh Dolega (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dog-whistling contribution.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How dare you suggest that is dog whistling!

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Henderson, direct your remarks through the chair.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through you, Chair, how dare Senator Dolega suggest it is dog whistling to be proud of our country and be proud of our flag. So many people want to come and live in our country because we are a great country and we have one the most successful migration histories of any country in the world. We are a proud migrant nation. We are a proud multicultural country with those who have been here for thousands of years, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders; those who came to our country decades ago; and recent arrivals. We are a hugely successful multicultural country.

Senator Dolega, you're only a new senator; you're reading from Labor's talking points, but I would ask you to reflect on the way in which you have characterised not just members and senators on this side of the chamber and this side of the political aisle but every Australian who is proud to fly the Australian flag in their backyard or front yard; every local school, RSL or community organisation who is proud to fly the Australian flag; and of course those who want to drape the Australian flag around them—all power to every single Australian who flies our flag and wears our flag with pride.

But the bottom line is—and I do rise to take note of the answer to the question asked by Senator Scarr—that every country has a responsibility to run its migration program in its national interest, and that is not happening under this government. We have seen migration be grossly mismanaged. Senator Scarr spelt out some of the facts in relation to that mismanagement. We know that migration is running out of control. Net overseas migration for the year ending 31 March 2025 was still 315,900. This is approximately 100,000, or 46 per cent, above the 10-year average prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is 91,000 higher than Treasury's NOM forecast in the last budget for the three years commencing 1 July 2026. It is 80,000 higher than the long-term average assumption of 235,000 used by the Centre for Population. This government has a very bad record of mismanaging migration in the national interest.

And what does that mean? Without having the short-, medium- and long-term migration planning in place—we heard crickets from the responsible minister in this place today; Labor will not fess up what those long-, medium- and short-term targets are—how can we as a nation plan for services, for infrastructure, for what our nation needs, for schools and for hospitals?

When I was in my former role as shadow minister for education, we took a very strong policy to the election: capping numbers of international students at 25 per cent at public universities. That still would have made us one of the most generous countries in the world in terms of welcoming international students. Instead we now see the number of international students running at record levels and getting worse, with the government completely dropping the ball on managing international students, who, as we know, contribute about half of net overseas migration. That is not good enough. (Time expired)

Richard Dowling (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To follow up on the immigration discussion, Senator Henderson did quote that figure, which is accurate, that net overseas migration for the 12 months to March 2025 was 315,000, but what she didn't mention is that that is down 40 per cent, and it's trending down. It has actually fallen for six consecutive quarters in a row.

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

What's the target?

Richard Dowling (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We'll get to that. We've fallen 17,000 below what Treasury predicted as well. Nobody can dispute that NOM is down and continues to trend down. Of course, we've maintained permanent migration at exactly the same settings, at 185,000. I know Senator Scarr focused a lot on Tony Burke's Insiders interview and what was and wasn't answered, but I thought, let's just see what he actually said in response to 'What's the appropriate level of migration?' I went back to look at the transcript, and he said, 'It's tailored to the needs of the nation—is what that's about. Retaining flexibility in the system is really important.' That's why he said, for example, 'Now, I never want a situation where we have a demand for more healthcare workers and we say, "No, we're not going to do them; we're just going to close shifts in our hospital." I don't want that situation.' So having short-term targets is folly. We actually want to have flexibility.

We need to have flexibility in our system. I don't know what central planning school you've come from where you think you can do these micro, quarterly plans for migration—

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

How do you plan?

Richard Dowling (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

where you're going to shift construction patterns across. We live in a global economy. Migration is flexible. We need a flexible economy. I know you want some command-and-control system, but we actually live in a flexible migration system that allows our market to respond. We have a measured, humane, pragmatic system. We're seeing the migration numbers come down. That's what the market is saying. We have a consistent, steady—you know these things—permanent migration program as well. I think we can just take the heat and emotion out of it and have a fact based discussion here about what we're actually doing. We're seeing a lot of growth in visas for construction, for example, because we do need more people in those construction trades to meet the needs of Australians, such as for more housing.

The coalition come to this debate as though there's no history to it and we're just starting today. But we've heard the multiple policies—unlimited student visas was one of them. It wasn't a policy; they actually voted for it. They pledged to bring back a visa class that Labor had stopped accepting—so-called cash for visas. So they don't come to this with a clean record.

But I will move on and reflect on the Reserve Bank's decision today to hold rates at 3.6 per cent. Of course people would have liked to have seen a rate cut, a Melbourne Cup Day rate cut, but that wasn't expected. The decision was pretty much anticipated. But that comes on the back of three rate cuts. One of the most important factors in the housing debate is obviously the cost of debt, and the cost of debt is significantly cheaper than it has been for a very long time. And we've seen headline inflation continue to trend down. Yes, the most recent quarterly figures did show an increase, but it still remains in the target, and you don't want to read too much into a single quarterly set of data. It was 6.1 per cent and rising, and now it's around half of that. So it's significant progress. The trimmed mean remains within the target band for three consecutive quarters.

Now, of course, the coalition claim to be worried about inflation and government spending, but we know that, at the last election, their own costings showed that they were going to be spending more and delivering bigger deficits than the Labor proposal. Similarly, they even opposed tax cuts. Again, we have this lack of historical context as they come in to criticise things today, as though they made a clean contribution to this debate.

What we want to do is continue to bring down inflation, see real wages grow and maintain unemployment at record low levels, where it is now, in the face of global uncertainty. And that's why you've seen so much focus also from the Prime Minister about assuring Australia's spot internationally. That will help give security with our trading partners, and we can also deliver cost-of-living security at home. (Time expired)

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of answers to questions from my colleagues Senator Scarr and Senator Paterson. I say 'answers', although there does seem to be a pattern to them—perhaps it's a lack of answers. There seems to be a recurring theme here of the avoidance of scrutiny by this Labor government. Prior to the election, Labor committed to bringing down migration numbers, and they committed to 'a principles based, multiyear planning model for permanent migration' and to collaborate with states and territories. This was an election promise. However, just last weekend, on the ABC, that commitment—that promise to you—was abandoned. It was abandoned by the minister, who is now refusing to provide a target number. He's even refusing to provide a range on permanent migration and on net overseas migration. In fact, all the minister has provided is three sentences, less than 100 words—a description of the program for the current year. How on earth is a country supposed to plan its growth, its infrastructure, its housing and its health care with nothing but a 100-word statement from a government that is shifty—from a government that is avoiding scrutiny at every single turn?

Let me be very clear here. Australia is a highly successful, peaceful, multicultural, proud migrant nation. Over one-third of all Australians were born overseas. Over half of all Australians have a parent that was born overseas. I reject—and, in fact, I'm very deeply hurt and offended by—Senator Dolega's insinuation that, somehow, if you want a well managed migration policy, that must mean that you're antimigrant and that must mean that somehow you're some deep seated racist. Nothing could be further from the truth. You'd be hard pressed to find anybody in this chamber without a first- or second-generation migrant within their family.

A well managed migration program has been the keystone, the foundation stone, of our successful social and economic story in this country. But there's no doubt at all that, when your population grows rapidly—as it has under Labor, who brought in 1.5 million migrants in their first term of government—and your migration program is out of control, there is pressure. There is pressure on your infrastructure. There is pressure on your healthcare system. There is pressure on housing, made so much worse by the decision of the Reserve Bank of Australia today to keep interest rates on hold even though we know that there are so many Australians out there that were hanging on every word from Michele Bullock today. Of course that is going to get worse if your migration program is out of control.

The fact that there have been 315,000 migrants in the last 12 months—this is something that Labor is, somehow, crowing about. Yet it's around 46 per cent higher than the 10-year average. It's around 34 per cent higher than the long-term average assumption that is being used in the budget data forecast by Treasury. So they have massively outstripped their own targets and, somehow, are crowing about the success of their migration program. That is absolute nonsense. A successful migration program requires planning. It requires management. It requires sustainability. It needs to have a social licence. It needs to have the permission of the people that voted for you, and you have not got that. In fact, you have completely ignored the policy that you took to the last election. Most importantly, it requires transparency, which is exactly what this government promised. Unfortunately, they have reneged on that promise.

A well managed immigration policy brings in the skills that we need for the life that we want. That's pretty simple. That's been the foundation stone of our migration policy for as long as I can remember, but, if Labor cannot or will not manage our migration program, the economy suffers and our services suffer. It's Australians that end up paying the price. Not only have Labor broken an election commitment; they've also demonstrated a profound failure in political leadership. Public support for immigration has been undermined by this government. When a government says one thing and does another and when it avoids scrutiny and refuses to account for its own outcomes, the public notice, and the public are putting you on notice.

Question agreed to.