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

Firstly, I have some housekeeping. The Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018 has been amended to update the question to be proposed in the plebiscite. It was necessary to reintroduce this bill and then amend it to overcome drafting delays due to inappropriate staffing levels in parliamentary support services, thanks to the Labor government. It's a constraint the government has not inflicted on itself, given the thousands of pages of legislation before the Senate this week alone. Some technical amendments have been circulated to update section references.

The intent of the bill, though, is the same as on the previous occasions One Nation has brought this bill before the Senate. It's time to ask the Australian people in a plebiscite: how much immigration is enough? That is a question for the people. After all, in a representative democracy, the first duty of a parliamentary representative is to listen to the MP's masters—the people. I'll say that again. After all, in a representative democracy, the first duty of every parliamentary representative is to listen to the members of parliament's masters—the people. The remainder of the bill sets out the provisions necessary to conduct the plebiscite. That section of the bill closely follows the provisions of the gay marriage plebiscite. Just as One Nation respected the wishes of the Australian people in that outcome, we would expect all members of parliament and senators to respect the outcome of this plebiscite.

This bill will pose the question, 'Do you support a zero net migration policy for a period of five years?' It's a very simple, straightforward question. 'Zero net' simply means the number of new arrivals must equal the number of people who leave—zero net migration; net migration, zero. This brings to an end the era of massive population growth and mass migration started under John Howard's prime ministership. That will ease the pressure on housing, medical services, education, transport and infrastructure and provide space for the assimilation for the massive number of people who have been brought to Australia under this Labor government. Five years is enough for that process to work through, especially the construction of housing and infrastructure.

And One Nation would police existing immigration laws. There are an estimated 200,000 people here illegally, meaning people who have deliberately breached their visa conditions, which is illegal. These people should be deported—remigration back to where they came from. That provision is not in this bill. We should not need a bill to make the government police the laws it already has. One Nation does not oppose immigration. We oppose mass migration, which—for the deliberately ignorant or unaware, unconscious and uncaring left-wing commentariat—can be defined as new migration from all sources which exceeds the housing construction rate after accommodating natural population increase. Pretty simply, build the home before the person arrives. This is not rocket science—build the home before the person arrives. I speak as a migrant and as an Australian citizen.

For a generation, the Liberal, Labor and Greens parties have had this simple concept backward—bring a migrant to Australia and, once they're here, build them a home. In the meantime, they're homeless. Eventually build them a home—no rush! This backwards approach to immigration has caused the worst housing crisis in Australian peacetime history—record homelessness and growing. New migrants coming in here are homeless. Australians are homeless. The elderly, unemployed and working poor are being priced out of the housing market as new arrivals increase demand. That drives up rents and home prices.

The government has then stepped in and created schemes to make it easier to afford one's home, supposedly, usually through low-deposit mortgages and first home buyer grants. All these do is drive up the price of the house, so the young person is back where they started, needing an unaffordable deposit and a higher income to cover repayments on a home that should, at their asking price, be made of gold. Other speakers, I'm sure, will point out how the Albanese government's latest confidence trick on young home buyers, the low deposit housing scheme, has had exactly this effect—driving up prices so that young buyers are no better off.

You will hear an opposing argument that the housing crisis is not about population growth; it's about housing construction. In recent days, the Labor Party has once again stood in front of cameras in their high-vis gear, complete with hard hat, all borrowed from the wardrobe department, to announce more money is to be spent on housing. What comes of these announcements? Nothing. People cannot build with what we don't have. There is a lack of approved land, equipment, materials and experienced construction labour. It's an outrageous thing to say all we need to do is to bring in more tradies. To begin with, more new arrivals is the cause of the problem. I'm mindful that sitting right behind me is someone who's in the construction industry from Western Australia, Senator Tyron Whitten, and he will be speaking later. Secondly, homes are not making it to the tradie stage fast enough to justify more tradies.

This is all a smokescreen anyway. The reality is that the ALP doesn't want more tradies, having only brought in 6,000 new tradies in their entire first term. That's less than one per cent, a fraction of one per cent, of the government's mass migration intake—less than one per cent building houses for the other more than 99 per cent, as well as the pent-up demand from the past. The government wants a labour shortage so their union boss mates can demand ludicrous wage rises. I've heard of stop/go attendants earning $140,000 per year and, in some areas, $200,000 a year. What does that do to the cost of houses? What does that do to the profit and viability of builders? Construction companies are going under. We can see that.

What do material shortages do to their profit? This epidemic of mass migration is happening around the world, a global push from globalists setting the agenda in BlackRock Inc. and then moving into the housing market with benefits given to them by the Labor government only in recent weeks. In the absence of Australian production of building materials, Australia is a price taker. We are competing with literally the entire world to get building materials to Australia. Local councils are flat out processing development applications. Everyone in the housing chain is juggling red tape, green tape and blue UN tape to somehow manage to get homes built. More tradies won't fix that problem; reduced housing demand and fewer new arrivals will fix that problem.

Consider this question: more arrivals increase home prices and cause homelessness, so what does reducing new arrivals do? There's no need to guess at the answer. Our friends across the ditch in New Zealand have answered the question for us. New Zealand has woken up. Immigration numbers were reduced from 70,000 in 2024 to just 13,000 in 2025. As a result, new home prices fell and rents stabilised after just one year of reduced migration. Look at Canada. The same has happened in Canada. In contrast, Australia keeps bringing in more new arrivals than we have houses. And guess what? House prices and rents keep going up and up and up. Go figure. It's pretty simple. Australia is already building more new homes per capita than any other country in the world, yet record homelessness continues growing.

An entire generation of young Australians is being disenfranchised. I talk to these fine young Australians every day. They tell me that they're giving up on ever owning their own home—giving up! Giving up on their own country. Scott Challen, a builder in Brisbane, tells me that, daily, young people are being disenfranchised. That is dangerous for the future of our country. These young people speak of their frustration, of their betrayal, at the hands of the governing Liberal-Labor uniparty. These are children that have done everything society has asked of them. They've studied hard, stayed out of trouble and achieved a trade or university degree. They are working in a good job—or two jobs, or for some of them three jobs, to make ends meet—and they find that, despite this dedication and sacrifice, they're struggling to pay rent, let alone save for a home deposit. Even if they can save a deposit, where can they afford to buy? Sydney? The average home price is above $1.5 million. No young person can afford that, yet Sydney is where the jobs are. Why is Sydney so dear? Well, new arrivals—that's the answer. Analysis of average home prices, average rents and immigration numbers in Sydney in the last five years shows a simple fact: the higher the immigration intake, the larger the increase in rents and home prices—full stop, end of story. Conversely, the lower the intake, the lower the prices.

How many people are currently in Australia who aren't Australian citizens? Good question. After a bit of digging, I believe the answer is around 3.7 million people, made up of 2.5 million temporary visa holders and 1.2 million permanent residents, plus 380,000 tourists and short-stay crew. That makes four million people plus, when including tourists, here in this country who are not citizens. Migration statistics are opaque and confusing. They are deliberately opaque and confusing. There are lots of traps when adding different types of data together, and it's an area where we're prone to get fact-checked, misreported and misrepresented. This allows the champions of mass migration to understate the intake and then deflect away from migration to blame other factors, like a lack of tradies. Don't fall for it. It's rubbish.

If you are in this country and not a citizen, you need to be on a visa. We know how many visa holders are in the country right now. As at July 2025 there were 2.5 million temporary visa holders, not including tourists. There were 1.5 million permanent visa holders, and four million noncitizens—four million non-Australians—all of whom need a home in which to live. The effect this is having on the housing market can be seen in a simple statistic: 43 per cent of the population of Greater Sydney and 41 per cent of the population of Greater Melbourne were born overseas. That isn't migration; that's mass migration. It's invasion. It's part of a globalist agenda across many woke Western nations, and Australians are shouting this in the streets now.

In every nation, it is the government's duty to design immigration policy for the benefit of citizens already in the country, not for the benefit of those outside wanting to come into the country. Immigration policy, just as a side point, has four broad aspects in my view. The first is numbers of people allowed—no, invited—into the country. The second is the quality of people allowed in, their skills, whether they will be put straight to work and contribute productively, safety and security, the quality of people and the culture. The third is: will the people coming in assimilate and integrate into the identity of the country? The fourth is: will Australia's identity be preserved? Multiculturalism, introduced by Bob Hawke and reinforced by John Howard, undermines assimilation and integration and destroys Australian identity.

Stop it and restore Australian identity. This bill, though, is only about numbers. The question of how much immigration is too much has never been put to the Australian people. It's time. As a migrant and as a citizen, I value our country and say: it's time.

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

Sean Bell (NSW, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is not my first speech. That will come later today. This bill is very simple. It's simply to give Australians a say in determining the level of immigration we want into this country, and One Nation is simply respecting all Australians in proposing we give them a voice. The reason we need to ask this question, and the reason we need answers, is because the other parties in this place have stopped listening. They have stopped listening to the people, and the people have had enough. They want to be heard.

The Albanese government, along with the Liberals and the Nationals—take your pick—have waved through, year after year, mass immigration, and they have done it while ignoring every warning sign. And One Nation has been warning them for a very long time. They have ignored every stressed neighbourhood, every congested highway, every family priced out of a home, every hospital bed shortage and every Australian pushed to the back of the queue. One Nation sees you and we hear you. You have been ignored for too long. We have been raising the alarm time and time again, and we do so again today. The other parties have ignored the concerns and the pleas for help from everyday Australians struggling against mass immigration and the pressure it puts on this country. It is time that it stops.

This debate is about how many people should come to this country. This debate is about the manner in which they come to this country, the levels in which they come. We have proposed a net zero pause for five years. That is a reasonable suggestion, and it is a reasonable question to put to the Australian people so as to give them a voice. The fact is our population, driven by mass immigration, is surging far too quickly for our infrastructure, our hospitals, our schools, our roads and our wages to keep up.

Let's talk about a truth that the government doesn't like to talk about. These mass migration policies that they have supported have led to one of the longest periods of GDP-per-capita recession in our nation's history. One Nation have said it before, and we'll say it again: this mass immigration agenda by the Albanese government has been done to artificially pump up headline GDP, and without it we'll be staring at negative growth, quarter after quarter. This immigration policy, pushed by the Albanese government, is to hide their economic mismanagement. They know that without it they would be blamed for a recession that their poor economic management would have caused. So, instead of fixing the economy, instead of dealing with some of the underlying issues within the economy, they are pulling the mass immigration lever to fix what is essentially numbers on a page at the expense of the standard of living of Australians in this country. The consequences of mass immigration are everywhere. The people of Australia see them every single day—congested roads and overloaded infrastructure. Even Infrastructure Australia, a government body, have admitted that lags in infrastructure investment as they struggle to keep up with a surging population driven by mass immigration are damaging the economy and negatively impacting the quality of life of Australians. This is what millions of Australians live with daily.

Housing affordability is at breaking point, and it is breaking their hearts. Every Australian knows someone who cannot get into the housing market—their sons, their daughters, their family and friends. They know people who cannot find a rental because we've reached a national vacancy rate of 1.2 per cent, with some capital cities as low as 0.6 per cent. That is unacceptable. And it is caused by mass immigration pushed by the Albanese Labor government and the Liberals and the Nationals and the Greens. So why are we not seriously looking at immigration levels and putting Australians first?

All that is before we even consider stagnant wages and job competition. We have approximately 670,000 unemployed Australians in this country and nearly a million more who want additional hours. We are dealing with a labour market flooded by foreign visa holders, and we know that the big businesses, the multinationals, love this. Why wouldn't they? More workers artificially flooded into the market mean lower wages for Aussie workers and fewer jobs for Aussie workers. Australians at the lower end of the jobs market are left behind, and we will see much more of this unless the mass immigration tap is not turned off. The suffering will continue. Our services will continue to be strained.

Australia has grown by five million people since 2007, a 25 per cent increase. More than 60 per cent of that growth has come from immigration. This is not manageable; it is reckless. The worst part about it is that it has been deliberate. Now, we no longer have the services and infrastructure to match our population, because these were not delivered by the government.

So this bill is to give people a say on this. Do they want what we've had to continue—the reckless mass immigration agenda—or do we try something different? This bill will give the people a say, and that is something that politicians in this place seem terrified of. Why shouldn't Australians have the right to vote on whether immigration levels are too high? Politicians know the answer; they know the answer they will get. They know the Australian people will overwhelmingly reject the mass immigration agenda pushed on them by the major parties.

It was very interesting listening to some contributions in this place. I listened very carefully to Senator Scarr, from the Liberals. One of the things he said was that the question of immigration is far too complicated for the Australian people to address. It's far too complicated, and they can't be trusted to come up with an adequate policy solution. That notion that everyday Australians should be denied the right to have a say on a question because 'it's too complicated for them' goes to one of the fundamental differences between One Nation and the Liberal Party: we actually believe that the Australian people are smart enough to understand these problems, that they do understand these problems and that they've been demanding solutions. They've been demanding things like a net zero immigration pause.

Some of those matters that Senator Scarr raised in relation to family reunion visas and things like that would not be difficult to resolve. Government have forward projections. They understand how many people come in through the system via those categories and they could take that into account. They could make allowances in the number of people coming into the country. To raise that as a particular issue—it is simply not something that should stand in the way of a sensible policy that would end mass migration, and a proposal for net zero migration.

One Nation was the first political party pushing this idea, long before others even muttered the words, because we believe, genuinely and unapologetically, in giving the Australian people a voice. We will always ask for you to have a voice. That is why we're asking a simple question: should Australia adopt a policy of zero net migration for a period of five years—yes or no? It's a simple question. We know Australians want a say because mass immigration is affecting every aspect of our economy and quality of life. Australians deserve the respect of being asked and being given a say. If we do not give them their voice we are telling them that their voice does not matter—that we do not care about their concerns and that we do not care to adequately represent the views of the people.

I recall another point that was brought up by Senator Scarr. He said that one of the reasons that we couldn't implement a zero net migration policy is that we've signed some international treaties. We have signed some international treaties and therefore other countries get to have a say in our immigration rate. Other countries get to decide how many people come here, but the Australian people don't have the right to a say. They have been superseded by demands from foreign countries. I think that gets to the heart of this matter: we are listening to everyone but the Australian people.

I say again: the Australian people deserve a voice. They deserve to have their concerns heard. One Nation hears them. We will always give you a voice, and we will always put Australians first.

Fatima Payman (WA, Australia's Voice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, days after reheating a stunt from 2017, the spirit of Senator Hanson now reheats a bill from 2018. With all the talk about One Nation poaching Barnaby Joyce, I'd perhaps be keeping an eye on the Greens. The amount of recycling that's happening in One Nation these days is genuinely impressive. This bill has already been voted down twice—once in 2019 and once last year—and yet here we are. In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, a housing crisis and a climate crisis, this is the grand solution being put forward by One Nation: a non-binding plebiscite. Nothing says 'serious policymaking' like asking Australians to vote on a question that won't actually change a single law.

Let me be absolutely clear here: Senator Hanson—through you, Chair—has every right to move whatever bill she believes is in the national interest. That's one of the beautiful things about this country and that's one of the most beautiful things about our democracy. Every senator in this place has the right to put a bill forward that they're interested in or that they think their constituents are interested in. But, just as immigrants must uphold Australian values such as respect, equality and freedom of expression—the very values that explicitly reject racial discrimination and religious intolerance—every member of this chamber should also uphold them. The Australian values statement is unequivocal, and it says:

People in Australia are free to follow any religion they choose.

…   …   …

Religious intolerance is not acceptable in Australian society.

Every immigrant signs this, including me, including Senator Roberts and including Senator Babet. It's unfortunate that the bill before us today suggests that Senator Hanson herself would perhaps fail this values test.

This bill is not about migration levels. It's not about planning or infrastructure or economics. It's about fear. It's about division. It's about distracting struggling Australians, who are having a hard time putting food on the table, paying the next bill, ensuring that their kids have the best shot at life and that there's a roof over their heads, who have these real reasons for life becoming harder and harder. But, in fact, this whole bill is distracting everyone from the core issues that need to be dealt with here.

Let's deal with the myths calmly, factually and with evidence, not with slogans and not with fearmongering. Myth No. 1—population growth is out of control. A senior economist—not me, not Senator Roberts, not anyone else here—from the Australia Institute, Matt Grudnoff, has laid out the facts very clearly. During COVID, population growth fell to historic lows for about 18 months. The population even went backwards as international students and temporary workers left. When borders reopened, the so-called surge was simply people returning home, and, since 2024, population growth has fallen back to pre-COVID levels. Here's the key point: if the population had grown at normal pre-COVID rates, Australia today would have way more people, not fewer. The bounce-back hasn't even caught up to where we would have been if COVID had never happened. So the idea that we're facing some unprecedented population explosion simply isn't true.

Myth No. 2—migration caused the housing crisis. Let's test that claim using the best natural experiment that we've ever had: the COVID border closure. During COVID, population growth collapsed, yet house prices skyrocketed. Why would that be the case? It's because the Reserve Bank slashed interest rates and speculative investors flooded the market. As Matt Grudnoff says, if migration drove housing prices, 2020 should have been the cheapest time to buy in 20 years. Instead, prices surged. Here is the data government after government refuse to acknowledge. Over the past 10 years the population grew by 16 per cent but the number of dwellings grew by 19 per cent. We're building homes faster than the population is growing. That's what the numbers are saying. It's not me. It's not Senator Roberts. It's no-one else here. It's the numbers. It's the facts. Over the longer 20-year period, capturing the entire modern housing crisis, the population grew by 34 per cent and dwellings grew by 39 per cent. The housing crisis exists despite immigration, not because of it. It exists because governments protected investor loopholes like negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts, ignored the supply issue and all the planning and infrastructure that goes into it, and handed housing over to the property market. Again, immigrants didn't create this crisis. Politicians—or rather, bad policies—did.

Myth No. 3—immigrants don't share Australian values. Immigrants are the only group in this country required to prove their loyalty through tests, paperwork, declarations and character assessments. They sign up to values that many politicians themselves don't model. What value is more Australian than working super hard, contributing to society and giving our kids a better future?

Myth No. 4—immigrants are taking jobs or straining services. I mean, come on—they run the services. If we stopped migration tomorrow, hospitals would collapse, construction would grind to a halt, servos would shut, mines would close and the aged-care sector would fall over completely. There'd be nobody to care for your granny when she soils herself. Immigration is not breaking the system; it is holding it together.

Myth No. 5—migrants are a security threat. This fear is being imported directly from Mar-a-Lago. Through you, Acting Deputy President Sterle, Senator Hanson has returned from a Halloween party with Gina Rinehart and her new best buddy Donald Trump, whose administration is now bizarrely ordering the US embassy in Canberra to collect migrant crime data to fuel a global culture war that we're seeing run rampant around the world. Astonishingly, One Nation is happy to bring Trump's playbook into this chamber and do his bidding for him. If you ever want to know who a politician is truly working for, look at who they spend most of their time with. While working Australians were wondering how to pay their next bill, Senator Hanson was busy chasing selfies with foreign billionaires.

Has Senator Hanson ever introduced a bill to crack down on supermarket price gouging or cost-of-living pressures? Has she introduced a bill to tackle negative gearing or capital gains tax discount, or a bill to force the wealthy—you know, her billionaire friends—to pay their fair share? She's always ready to target migrants, Muslims and multicultural communities.

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

Senator Bell, you have a point of order?

Sean Bell (NSW, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just ask that Senator Payman address her comments to the chair when she's speaking about Senator Hanson.

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

Senator Bell, I see no point of order. The senator has referred through the chair on a number of occasions.

Fatima Payman (WA, Australia's Voice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Acting Deputy President. I think I struck a nerve there. Anyway, back to this bill. This bill is not designed to fix problems. As I have outlined through those facts, very calmly and factually, it is designed to distract Australians from addressing those who are actually causing this problem and who are responsible. The moment Australians direct their anger upwards to the billionaires and all the vested interests who actually created this mess, politicians who serve those billionaires would have a serious problem. Working people, whether they look like me or whether they wear high-vis, a hard hat or a business shirt, have a lot more in common with each other than with the billionaires who bankroll these fear campaigns. Immigrants didn't privatise public assets. They didn't sell off social housing. They didn't freeze wages. Blaming migrants won't lower your rent, put food on your table or put a roof over your head.

Decent Australians deserve better than fear campaigns like this, dressed up as policy that somehow miraculously changes systemic problems without the actual reforms that we need to tackle. This bill is divisive, it's very misleading and it's entirely disconnected from economic reality. Once again, it should be rejected. I implore all my Senate colleagues to think very carefully, to look at what modern day Australia looks like, to reflect on who you're representing in your constituencies and to reject this bill as it should be rejected.

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

I've watched the fabric of Australian life stretch and tear under the weight of Labor's disastrous mass immigration policies, policies the Australian people no longer stand behind. The Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018 represents a beacon of democracy in an era where the voices of everyday Australians are being drowned out. One Nation has been asking for this since 2018, and it remains as relevant as ever, calling for a simple question to be put to the Australian people. Should Australia adopt a policy of zero net migration for a period of five years?

How it has come to this is beyond me. Look about our cities. Rentals have a hundred people showing up, scrambling for shelter. Australians are suffering. Why not let Australians decide what they want for the future of their country? Let the young decide, as they stare down million-dollar mortgages for a dog box 30 kilometres from town. Let the families decide, as both parents have to work full time or work two jobs and are forced to put their babies into day care just to afford a family home.

This chamber has shamefully voted down this plebiscite twice already, with Labor and the coalition turning their backs on the very people they claim to represent. As Senator Hanson herself said when she first asked for a plebiscite all the way back in 2018, this bill is simply saying: give Australians a say. That's all we want. We want to listen to the people, but listening seems to be the last thing this government is willing to do. In my home state of Western Australia, I see the shattered lives left in the wake of mass immigration—the people and families living in tents or in the cars or on the streets. These people are not abstract statistics; they are Australians that have had their dreams crushed. With rental vacancies at a dismal one per cent in Western Australia, families are forced to compete fiercely for shelter against the waves of mass immigration unleashed by Labor. Rents have skyrocketed by 43.8 per cent in five years, adding thousands to annual costs for struggling families.

This is no accident. It is the direct consequence of Labor's reckless policies, flooding the market with record net overseas migration while ignoring the iron laws of supply and demand. In the 12 months to September 2025, we saw net long-term arrivals of over 468,000—the equivalent of adding the population of Hobart to the country twice. Labor have stuck their heads in the sand, fabricating narratives about how record demand isn't fuelling the housing explosion—that you need this sky-high immigration. They would have you believe that we need more skilled workers to build the houses we desperately need, despite their immigration plan being found to include only 12 per cent of genuinely skilled migrants. That 12 per cent is all skilled migrants, not just construction. The actual numbers in construction are minuscule. I have a background in construction, and I can assure you tradies are not sitting around waiting for a phone call from the Labor government. This government will spin the truth like a top. They're happy to gaslight their own citizens to avoid asking this simple question we are proposing. Productivity suffers too, as low skilled workers outpace capital investment, depriving the workers of the Australia of the investment they need to be productive, leading to the real wages of Australians falling back to 2011 levels.

Our kids are no longer doing as well as generations that came before them, but we are told time and time again by Labor how much they care and how much they are doing for young people. So why would they not pull the single most important lever to kids their future back? The reasons they pump immigration are glaringly obvious. Polling from Redbridge Group showed that immigrants overwhelmingly support Labor. Knowing that, they'll keep the taps on. They are happy to burn down the country we love and rule over the ashes. This plebiscite would cut through the political fog. It will leave no doubt over what the Australian people want to see from their elected members of parliament. The members of this chamber need to remember that they are here to carry out the will of the people. If you are sick of hearing us speak on immigration numbers, support this plebiscite. If Australians agree with your policies, support this plebiscite. When we get the answer that Australians are done with mass immigration, cease and desist your economic and cultural suicide.

This plebiscite is not just a vote; it is a reclamation of sovereignty, a chance for the people to demand accountability from the government that has long since forgotten who is in charge here. It doesn't matter what experts or economists think or say. It doesn't matter what politicians in here say. Heck, it doesn't matter what I say. It matters what the Australian public says. One Nation is committed to this fight, because when Australians speak we listen.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens oppose the Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018 . It's a bill that is, in its initial drafting, embarrassingly nonsensical. I think it's the third time they've brought this legislation forward to get knocked on the head, and they didn't even have the wit to redraft the question that they initially put in their 2018 draft. So what's the question that One Nation wanted to put to the Australian public on migration? They wanted to put this:

From December 2005 to December 2016 Australia's population grew from 20.5 million to 24.4 million; 62% of this growth was from net overseas migration. Do you think the current rate of immigration to Australia is too high?

They are giving us figures from a decade ago. We're going to send that out to every Australian and then ask, 'Well, do you think the current rate of immigration is too high?' You couldn't make up the stuff that comes from this cowboy Ma and Pa Kettle outfit that calls itself One Nation.

Maybe they were desperate and embarrassed because their leader has been so utterly nationally shamed for coming in here, in that grossly disrespectful, racist, appalling, divisive way, wearing a burqa. Maybe they were so embarrassed by that that they just wanted to rush any kind of reheated vomit up, bring it in and put it into this chamber again. That's what this is: it's the reheated One Nation vomit of division, anti-immigration and Islamophobia. That's what this is. Let's not pretend it's anything else.

They want to have a plebiscite, and they say they believe in the Australian people, but what's the outcome of their plebiscite? Absolutely bloody nothing. They want to have a big national plebiscite, the end result of which is that nothing happens. That's One Nation all over, isn't it? In the shadow of their leader's appalling burqa fiasco in here, they bring a reheated 2018 bill, they don't even bother changing the wording of it, and then the end result of the plebiscite is absolutely bloody nothing. It has no binding effect. These guys are just a bunch of amateur performance racists who come in here. That's who One Nation is: amateur performance racists.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bell on a point of order?

Sean Bell (NSW, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order: that's clearly an improper personal reflection on the One Nation senators. I ask that it be withdrawn.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. I think, Senator Shoebridge, you should withdraw that comment and be mindful of your language.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw it.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This legislation is an amateur racist attempt to divide Australia. That's what this legislation is. It comes from a bunch of cowboys who play on Islamophobia and division. Do you want to know why we've got a housing crisis in this country? Do you want to know why, as the coalition says, there aren't enough tradespeople to build houses? I'll tell you why there aren't enough tradespeople to build houses: because Labor and the coalition privatised TAFE across the country, destroyed TAFEs across the country and destroyed the pipeline of public TAFEs providing skilled trades to the country. That's why we've got a shortage of trades: because Labor and the coalition, in their neoliberal push to privatise anything that's not nailed down, privatised TAFE and screwed the Australian future. Not only that—the coalition and Labor between them have sacked pretty much every apprentice from every public department in the country. They don't employ apprentices, they don't have public TAFE, and then they come in and wonder why there aren't any tradespeople to build houses. It's because of their neoliberal privatisation crap.

And then One Nation, the Nationals and Labor want to blame the housing shortage on migration. They privatise TAFE and destroy the pipeline for tradespeople, and then they come in here and dog-whistle on migration. Labor and the coalition want to talk about a housing crisis. Even in the answers that Labor gives to the inevitable racist questions that come from One Nation about migration—linking migration to a housing crisis and talking about record migration—they validate One Nation's racist attack on migration, because they never challenge the attack on migration. Labor always comes in here says, 'Oh, we've got a housing crisis—we know that—and we're reducing net migration.' Well, I call rubbish to that, because the reason we've got a housing crisis is that Labor and the coalition refuse to build public housing. The reason we've got a housing crisis is that Labor and the coalition think the answer to the housing crisis and young people having no homes is to give discounts and tax credits to the property industry, to try to manipulate the capital gains tax system and to reduce the home deposit to five per cent and balloon out housing prices. They will do everything they possibly can in the face of a housing crisis—and we know we've got a record housing crisis—except for what the Greens and young people have been calling for for years now, which is to build public houses, build public TAFE, train tradespeople, give people a home, invest in hospitals and transport, give people a future they can believe in, pass environmental laws that give young people a hope that their future will be protected, and reject the racist dog whistling from One Nation. That's the answer—build public housing, build public infrastructure, build public institutions, train people in public TAFE, tackle the climate crisis, fight racism and put the racist rhetoric from One Nation in the bin, where it belongs.

Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're surrounded by noise, a deafening drumbeat of division and fear about who belongs here and how many are too many. It's a national debate fuelled by mainland rhetoric, but, on our vibrant little island, we have a clear eyed perspective. Our future, our comfort and our very ability to function depend on a simple, often unseen truth.

I want to share a story about a perfectly ordinary day to illustrate this point. Take a look around you and imagine this very realistic scenario: you're unwell, perhaps on your own at home, and you need to go to the hospital. You can't drive, so you call a rideshare service. Your Uber driver picks you up, navigating the winding roads quickly and safely, and drops you off right at the door of the emergency department. You arrive at A&E to be greeted by the triage nurse. Your symptoms concern the nurse, and she expedites your care to visit the onsite GP, who runs the necessary checks. Fortunately, you check out okay and are sent home. Exhausted, you grab a taxi waiting out the front of the hospital, who takes you home. You arrive, too tired to cook but hungry enough to eat a horse and chase the jockey, so you order a takeaway. It's delivered to your door by a friendly delivery rider, allowing you to curl up for the night for a recovery at home.

What do you think the profound point I'm trying to make here is? It's pretty obvious, isn't it? Every single person I mentioned in that story was a migrant, and their roles, from the essential frontline health staff to the people ensuring your transport and sustenance, are vital to the smooth running of your life and mine. This reliance on migrants, both skilled and unskilled, is not a coincidence. It's the backbone of our community and our economy, yet we still hear the tiresome base-level arguments. The angle peddled by some is simple and, frankly, lazy. 'We don't want this one; we want that one.' 'We don't want this many; we want no-one.' This is not how a modern economy works, and it is certainly not how we build a strong, compassionate society in Tasmania. It's time the banging of the anti-mass-migration drum was drowned out by the sound of construction, enterprise and care.

We don't need to waste taxpayer dollars on a plebiscite. They tried to introduce this bill, the Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill, in 2018, and its message is still falling flat. It's no question that migrants add to our one nation and don't detract from it. In my experience—and, I believe, in the experience of most Tasmanians—the work ethic, the commitment to family and the profound desire to engage and interact shown by migrants who have chosen to settle in Tasmania are both admirable and deeply patriotic. They are not taking jobs; they are filling gaps, creating new markets and sustaining our entire service economy.

Tasmania has a crucial choice. We can choose isolation, fear and stagnation, or we can choose growth, prosperity and, above all, kindness. Our aging demographic means we are critically dependent on new blood and new skills. Every migrant who arrives here is an investment in our future. To every new Tasmanian—to the doctors, the drivers, the delivery drivers, the small-business owners and the factory workers—I say: I and many of my fellow Tasmanians appreciate you, we value your services and you are welcome in our island state. Let us commit to leading the nation, not in division but in radical, necessary inclusion.

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

If you travel around our great country, you cannot help but be confronted by the increasing number of tent cities and people living rough—Australians sleeping in cars, workers living in tents in public parks and whole families relying on public facilities for their shower and toilet. It is true that some of these people are stricken with substance abuse, which is another terrible blight on society and has its own enormous challenges, but many more of these people living in tents are not people disengaged from society. Many are working. A lot of those kids are trying to get to school every day. They simply can't find a rental that they can afford. You inflict rapid immigration on a country, you have a foreign student intake that, per capita, is the highest in the world, and the results are entirely predictable.

The mismanagement of immigration from this Labor government over the past three years has arguably been their worst. Over the past few years, Australia has added approximately one million migrants in its first two years of the Labor government. We have former students on bridging and post-study visas included, and it's widely understood international students are close to 800,000. Bob Birrell and his colleagues from the Australian Population Research Institute put out a paper this month that goes into the details around how temporary entry migration is driving Australia's net overseas migration surge, whether the size of the migrant growth has been exaggerated or not and if a populist agenda will alienate most voters.

The bill we are debating today seeks to give Australians a say on the high, unsustainable level of migration under the Labor Party government. Australians want to have a say. They have taken to the streets in their tens of thousands to say enough is enough. But a plebiscite model is not the pathway to do that, and so we won't be voting for this bill. But I absolutely support the need to give Australians say in what a sustainable level of migration and what isn't.

Debate adjourned.

(Quorum formed)