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

I rise to speak in relation to this private member's bill, the Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018. At the outset, I'll state that the opposition will be opposing this private member's bill. There were points made by Senator Hanson in relation to this country's immigration policy which I think are points which would be raised by many Australians—in particular, the chronic shortage of housing in this country at this point in time. We have a situation where between 2022 and 2023 there was net overseas migration of 518,000 people. The reality is that, when we are looking across our cities and our suburbs et cetera, Senator Hanson was right when she said that there is a chronic shortage of housing, and that needs to be considered by any responsible government in terms of calibrating the rate of overseas migration into this country.

It is a point which has been made by the shadow minister for immigration and citizenship, the member for Wannon. In a media statement released on 3 January 2024, he said:

The record scale of Labor's Big Australia by stealth that is fuelling inflation, driving up rents, and straining government services has been revealed by new data released today.

Record overseas migration of 518,000 people in the 2022-23 financial year has already been confirmed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

To achieve this, the Albanese Labor Government has broken more records than Ian Thorpe when it comes to issuing visas. According to answers to Senate Estimates Questions on Notice, Labor was responsible for a record-breaking Big Australia in 2023:

There is a legitimate question that all senators in this place need to ask in relation to what the right level of net overseas migration is, especially given the housing supply constraints this country is currently suffering under, and that is something we should all consider. However, notwithstanding the fact that there are absolutely legitimate questions that need to be asked, debated and considered in relation to Australia's immigration policy, the opposition does not believe that this is the right path.

The first point I want to make in that regard is that we sit in a parliamentary democracy. At the next election, members of One Nation, including Senator Roberts, members of the Labor Party, members of the coalition—the Liberal and National parties—and members of the Greens will all face our electors. We will all have to be responsible for the decisions that we've made in this place and in relation to the policies that we articulate and take to the people. The voters—the constituents—will have a right and an opportunity to keep each and every one of us accountable to them. We are their servants. We're accountable to them with respect to how we vote in this place and what policies we take to the next election. That's the way our system works.

Once the government is formed, ministers are appointed under our Westminster system. Each of those ministers has the carriage, through a cabinet process, of these policy areas. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs is responsible for the policy on immigration. The minister and the Albanese government are responsible for the current mess in that portfolio, and they should be held accountable at the next election. That is the way the system works. As Senator Hanson conceded in saying that there have been only three or so plebiscites over the last 100 years, that is effectively the way the system works in Australia. Governments come in and governments are kicked out on the basis of the views of the Australian people. That is our system of government.

The second point I want to make is that I genuinely do not believe that you can distil something as complicated and multifaceted as an immigration policy into one question. When I was reflecting on Senator Hanson's speech—and I was listening very carefully—I was thinking about the different components of an immigration policy, such as the particular skills shortages we have in certain areas and how we meet those skills shortages. I was thinking about the perennial question: are we able to move migrants into our regional and country areas and meet skills shortages in those areas with respect to jobs which many Australians who have been here for many generations aren't prepared to take on? I was considering our humanitarian intake. Australia has always had a very generous humanitarian intake. We do our bit in that context. This is a multifaceted question, and it's linked to housing supply as well. We need sufficient housing supply if we're going to bring people into this country. It's fair to them, and it's fair to us.

This is a multifaceted policy area, and I genuinely do not believe it is possible or optimal to try and distil it into one question. Ultimately, the government, while it is in government, is responsible for the administration of this policy. The government is responsible and is answerable to the Australian people at the next election. In this place as a house of review, as an upper house, it is our obligation to engage in a debate such as the one Senator Hanson has triggered today. It is Senator Hanson's role as a senator from my home state of Queensland to put this debate on the table. It is the role of our committees to interrogate particular policies and issues through the references committees processes. That's our job. While I've been in this place, I've seen senators from all corners contribute to that debate in good faith and in a meaningful way. All of us—through different pathways, no doubt—are seeking a better Australia as we see it, and that is our role as a Senate. The debate we're having now is part of that process.

I genuinely do not believe that you can distil something as complicated as an immigration policy into a single plebiscite question. I don't believe it's optimal, and I don't believe it's practical. I think each and every one of us need to be responsible to our electors with respect to what we do and say in this place and the policies that we represent. The Australian people will have an opportunity to vote as to whether or not they agree with the government's migration policy or with the position of the opposition or the crossbench—One Nation, the Greens or whoever it is. That's the way our parliamentary democracy works.

I do want to make a few reflections in relation to our multicultural communities. I do this having, last Saturday, shared the evening with the LNP's wonderful candidate in the Inala by-election, Trang Yen. Trang is a member of our wonderful Australian Vietnamese community. And we know the story. Many Australians fought in Vietnam. The communist north prevailed in Vietnam. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands—millions—of Vietnamese fled Vietnam after the communists had succeeded in Vietnam.

Eight hundred thousand Vietnamese died on boats, seeking freedom for themselves and, more importantly, for their children—800,000 died. Under the Fraser Liberal government, Australia opened its arms to that Australian Vietnamese community. We opened our arms to that community, and that community has contributed so much to this country. That community brought with them an appreciation of our values: freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of conscience. That community brought with them a determination to make the most of every opportunity in this country.

They came here with nothing, wearing just the clothes on their backs and the trauma of their backgrounds. They went to work and established small businesses. They built them into medium-sized businesses. They supported their children going through schools. Every Tet festival that the Vietnamese community has—I attend that festival with my friend Milton Dick, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, from the other place; he's from the other party, but we share common views with respect to that festival—they present awards to their highest-performing children and students. That's how much they value education.

I can remember having one discussion with a grandmother, who came to this country as a refugee because of the generosity of the Australian spirit, the Australian people, and I asked her: 'Your grandchild's getting an academic achievement certificate today. What are they going to do?' And this grandmother responded, 'Well, Senator Paul, she's going to do accounting.' I said, 'Why is she doing accounting?' The response was: 'Well, we already have six doctors, four dentists and three lawyers. We need an accountant.' This is just one example of one community, our Australian Vietnamese community, who are contributing so much to our country, and they are a blessing. One of the chapters in the Australian story is our Australian Vietnamese community, who have been such a great success.

Before I came to this place, I attended a memorial for the Amoy shepherds who came from China in the 1850s. There's a memorial to the Amoy shepherds out in St George in western Queensland. Those Amoy shepherds were Chinese indentured labour. At the time their region of China was going through a devastating famine, and there were agents sent across to China to try to convince young men to come to Australia, to western Queensland, and act as shepherds because Australia had a chronic labour shortage. Those young Chinese men signed up on the basis that they wanted to provide for their families back in China. They had every expectation of returning to China. Not one of them got back to China. Not one of them. And every one of those shepherds came to Queensland, which is today a six- or seven-—I am sure Senator Hanson has been to St George—or eight-hour drive, walked to St George and acted as shepherds, away from their families, away from their communities and contributing to this country, back in the 1850s. When we have these debates it is important to put on the record, as I am seeking to do, the contribution that is made by people who come to this place from different parts of the world. We have a demographic crisis in this country as well; we need more young people to support us as we get older.

I reflect on the fact that when my mother was in her last 12 months she had to make that awful transition into an aged-care facility. She was suffering chronic, chronic pain. You would not wish it on your worst enemy. And who was there looking after her? Who was having a cup of tea with her at 2:30 am when she was in chronic pain? I cannot express my thanks to the staff at that facility more. It was a young lady of African background who was working in that aged-care facility and an young lady of a Pacific Island background, from our wonderful Pacific family. They are the people doing the work in the aged-care facilities, looking after our mothers and fathers at their time of need, so we need to reflect very deeply and carefully on these issues.

The opposition has raised its substantial concern in many debates with Senator Hanson with respect to this government's current mismanagement of our migration policy, but I genuinely in good faith do not believe that this bill is the right way to approach such a complicated policy.