Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the private senators' bill put forward by Senator Hanson. There's nothing noble about this bill. It's long on alarmism and short on realism. No surprise, perhaps, given it has come from the party that has tried to push their anti-immigration agenda by moving a motion that praised the North Sentinelese tribe's strict zero-immigration policy—yes, the same tribe that killed American missionary John Chow last year.

I'm not here to question the motives behind the bill; they pale in comparison to the weak arguments on which the bill is built. Senator Hanson has said:

Our immigration policy is like a rider-less horse. It is dangerous. What we need is a rider, a population policy to safely guide the immigration horse.

Can I tell you that everything, and I mean everything, the government does in this space it does with the Australian people in mind. The Treasurer has an entire department. There is a tax office which looks at how many people we have, who is working, who isn't, how long we'll have those workers doing so or how long until we get some more, where those workers are and what they're earning to guide tax collection and spending. And, they're not working in the dark. The Australian Bureau of Statistics falls under the auspices of the Treasurer too. Likewise, the health minister looks at the population: where are the older people, where are the unvaccinated children, where do we need more doctors? I think you get the idea.

To help Senator Hanson understand just how much the health minister can read these things in real time, the Health Insurance Commission also collects statistics on the matter. If a person gets the flu and goes to the doctor before they go to bed for a week, we'll know about it. When that person becomes a number in the Australian Influenza Surveillance Report, it helps to inform our decision-making. In case you're wondering, there have been 153,272 cases of influenza this year up to 14 July.

Indeed, many people are probably uncomfortable with the amount of data that's being collected about Australians with a view to managing population and service delivery, but all of this shows that it isn't the government's first rodeo on this stuff. We understand the flow-on effects of population growth on the economy, on services, on Australians' day-to-day lives. Every day members of the team in cabinet, the ministry and our backbench are looking at population and adjusting policy and spending to deal with population changes. And, to top it all off, we have the population centre of excellence gathering all that data, comparing it against Australians' needs, now and in the future, and against other international options.

We have a clear immigration policy. It's called a plan for Australia's future population—creative, that one—and it manages Australia's immigration program in the short, medium and long term. Our plan reduces the permanent migration program cap by 15 per cent from 190,000 places to 160,000 places per year. That will make 120,000 fewer permanent visas available over the next four years.

Senator Hanson is concerned, it seems, that certain regions of our major cities have higher percentages of people who are born overseas. The government recognises that 75 per cent of Australia's entire population growth occurs, at this point in time, in our major cities. That's why our population plan encourages more new migrants to settle outside of our big cities and in smaller cities and regional areas. We're incentivising regional migration with two new regional visas for skilled workers: the skilled employer sponsored regional visa; and the skilled work regional visa. Migrants on these visas will need to demonstrate that they have lived and worked in regional Australia for three years before they can apply for permanent residency and 23,000 places have been set aside from the total for these regional visas. The hope and the expectation is that they will fall in love with all the wonderful things that rural and regional Australia has to offer. We have set up new $15,000 scholarships to be made available to over 1,000 international and domestic students to study in regional Australia—again, knowing that they will find it irresistible. And international students studying at regional universities will have access to an extra year in Australia on a post-study work visa.

Senator Hanson has argued that one of the biggest drawbacks of higher immigration is greater congestion and loss of amenity in our main cities, and I acknowledge that that's something that many people are concerned about. That's part of the reason why the government is investing a record $100 billion—not million, billion—in infrastructure over the next 10 years. Some examples of projects where funding that will cut congestion in Australia's cities include: $3.5 billion for the Western Sydney rail; $2 billion for fast rail to be built between Geelong and Melbourne; and $1 billion to upgrade the M1 in Queensland as well as exploration of fast rail heading to the Sunshine Coast also in my home state. We've quadrupled funds for further road congestion-busting projects through the Urban Congestion Fund, from $1 billion to $4 billion, and we're working with the states and territories to deliver vital infrastructure projects that match local population needs. We've made population management a fixture of COAG discussions, and I think that's a significant cultural change in the way people are approaching this issue.

The Centre for Population, which I referred to earlier in my address, has been established inside Treasury, and $23.4 million had been provided to establish that centre. There are about 20 people working in there doing nothing but looking at population. They will provide detailed analysis and advice on population issues now and in the future to help make sure that we have an informed debate on these subjects.

All of these elements of our plan will help to ease population pressures in our major capitals while helping to fill employment gaps in our smaller cities and regions and to grow their economies. That's what a sensible rate of immigration does—it helps to build our economic prosperity. But not once does Senator Hanson's bill address the need to ensure that we have economic prosperity and the role that immigration plays in ensuring that, both in our past and in our future. At this point in time there is necessity for immigration at some level to ensure our high economic performance and Australians' high expectations of living standards are met.

Senator Hanson says that the majority of Australians would say that the immigration rate is too high if they were told that 62 per cent of the population increase in the decade to 2016 was the result of immigration. Well, that may be so, but what would Australians say about our immigration level if they were told more honestly that, overwhelmingly, migrants have added to our nation by stimulating stronger growth, by creating jobs in our economy, by oftentimes doing jobs that Australians don't seem to want to do and by helping to slow the overall ageing of the Australian population?

A comprehensive research paper released by Treasury and the Department of Home Affairs last year found exactly this. It cites International Monetary Fund research showing our immigration program in its current state will add up to one percentage point to GDP growth each year from 2022 to 2050. The report found that our immigration programs' focus on skilled migrants of working age—that's important; we do need to be developing the skills base in this country—helped to limit the economic impact of Australia's ageing population. The contribution of these skilled migrants has lifted the standard of living here by 0.1 per cent of GDP per capita, increased productivity by 10 per cent—quite disproportionately, I'd suggest—and raised the workforce participation rate. Skilled migrants granted permanent visas in 2014-15 alone are estimated to make a combined lifetime tax contribution of almost $7 billion.

But here's the kicker. The Treasury paper warns that, if the current rate of migration is not maintained, we risk significantly lower economic growth and a substantial drop in Australians' living standards. You have to wonder whether those from One Nation plan to put that research before the Australian people if this mooted plebiscite were to go ahead. But, of course, they won't. The government understands and those opposite understand—and Senator Hanson should understand—that the fundamentals of this bill are flawed. I acknowledge that there are those in the community who hold concerns about our immigration levels—and I hear from them often. It's no wonder that they're scared when there is divisive rhetoric put forward by some in this chamber.

Now I've got concerns about plebiscites—fundamentally because it's our job to make the call on these things: to do the research, to gather the data, to make the fair and balanced case and ultimately to make decisions, and rise and fall on whether we get them right. I'm not a fan of a sustained practice of farming out to a plebiscite anything that's in the too-hard basket. But, putting that aside, it's not necessary, because this government has a plan for responsible levels of immigration. To reduce immigration as far as Senator Hanson proposes—down to just 70,000 people a year—would pose a major risk to our economy. It risks our AAA credit rating. It risks our record economic growth at a time when there is global uncertainty. It risks the headway that we have made to boost our economy with the passage of our personal income tax cuts package.

Over 320,000 jobs were created under this government over the last year. Employment has grown for 11 straight months, with unemployment down to 5.1 per cent. The participation rate is at a record high of 65.8 per cent. Last quarter the economy grew by 0.4 per cent, bringing the yearly growth rate to 1.8 per cent. We are in our 28th year of uninterrupted annual economic growth. Are there challenges ahead? Sure, but that's all the more reason we shouldn't jeopardise that steady, positive performance. And until all Australians experience the benefits of that growing economy, until Australians are feeling the benefits of rising wages as well as more job opportunities, we cannot rest.

This bill seeks to affirm a policy that would put all this economic improvement at risk. Why would we ask the Australian people to support a policy that is so plainly against their own economic interests? This country can attribute much of its economic success to our immigration program—in combination with other activities, of course—and our growing numbers are being managed successfully through the government's population plan. This bill endorses a solution that would have catastrophic consequences for our economy, for a problem that is already being addressed by this government in a sensible, measured and long-sighted way. For that reason, I cannot support it.