Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Senator Cash. Since 2007, net migration to Australia compromised over 60 per cent of Australia's total population growth. Governments have argued that increasing GDP is a welcome benefit of such migration. However, whilst GDP has risen steadily, per capita measures of income have recently declined. Given the significant negative effect of the current migration program on per capita income, how can the current levels of net migration be justified? What action is the government taking to ensure that the standard of living for the majority of Australians is not threatened?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Bernardi for the question and for the small amount of notice he was able to give the minister's office.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did say 'small' amount of notice. It is a very important question. Our migration programs should serve all of our communities. I would hope that everybody in this chamber would agree that Australia is a stand-out when it comes to being one of the most successful migration nations globally. A well-managed migration program is, without a doubt, fundamental to Australia's future prosperity. Senator Bernardi, I agree that we need to ensure that the benefits of our migration program flow to all members of our community.

In responding to the specific question that you raised on migration's impact on per capita income, I draw your attention to a recent work of the Productivity Commission that looked into this very matter. The Productivity Commission undertook a review of Australia's migration intake last year. In its report, tabled on 12 September 2016, the Productivity Commission noted that there are indeed a number of important benefits of migration. For example:

By increasing the proportion of people in the workforce, immigration can provide a demographic dividend to the Australian economy and reduce the impacts of population ageing.

Moreover, the Productivity Commission found that by sustaining migration at 'this long-term average rate, and with the current age profile of the migrant intake, gross domestic product (GDP) per person is projected to increase by some seven per cent relative to a zero net overseas migration case by 2060'.

Again, I emphasise that the benefits of migration to the Australian community, including through increased incomes on a per capita basis, can only be done(Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi, a supplementary question.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

High net migration has also made a significant contribution to the fact that public investment on infrastructure per capita fell throughout the period 2010 to 2015. In a time of government deficits over a period of many years and a need to review government spending measures carefully, how does the government intend to maintain public investment to keep pace with Australia's excessive migration intake without raising taxes or increasing the national debt?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(—) (): I thank Senator Bernardi for the supplementary question. When Labor was last in government they increased the migration program to record levels through, in particular, losing control of our borders—unfortunately—which saw an additional 50,000 people come to the country. But one of the issues with the Labor Party in government at that time was that they did not have adequate investment in infrastructure to support our growing cities. Whilst on one hand they had tens of thousands of additional foreign workers coming into the country, they were not making an adequate investment in infrastructure. You would also know that, unlike Labor, those of us on this side of the chamber are part of a government that is investing in Australia's infrastructure needs. As part of our Economic Action Strategy we have made a $50 billion investment in current and future infrastructure. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi, a final supplementary question.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for the answer, and in future I will give you extra notice so that you may get a better brief in the hope of having a response appropriate to the question. Australia's excessively high levels of net migration have contributed to increased demand for housing and have placed enormous pressure on the property market in some Australian capital cities, with the ratio of house prices to household income increasing since late 2012 to historically record levels. How does the government intend to tackle the challenge of housing prices, and that includes through wage rises? (Time expired)

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again I thank Senator Bernardi for the supplementary question. In terms of what you have stated on the impact of high levels of net migration and increased demand for housing et cetera, the government does not agree that this is just all about migration. There are, of course, a number of domestic policy settings which are more significant than migration levels, and you would be aware that there are many factors that influence demand for housing and, in turn, housing prices. As I think everybody in this chamber would recognise, it is a complex equation, and it would not be correct to say that immigration is the determining factor in the question. Supply of housing is obviously a key factor when you are talking about domestic policy settings, and this is influenced by a number of things, some of which the Commonwealth government can control but certainly many others of which are in the purview of the states. Planning regulations and supply of new housing stock are far more significant than immigration in determining supply of housing. (Time expired)