With 2.3 million new visa holders in Australia this year (excluding tourists) it’s no wonder we have a rental crisis. We need to stem the immigration tidal wave to a gentle ebb and flow of replacement. For everyone who leaves, someone new arrives. Net Zero migrants makes sense until we have sufficient housing, essential services and infrastructure to cope with more people.
Housing is tight and therefore expensive. It’s impossible to build enough houses or freeze enough prices to fix the housing problem until this immigration tidal wave is cut.
Instead of putting banks and big business first, let’s put people first.
Transcript
We agree with part of this Greens matter of urgency—that we are in a rental crisis, with more people experiencing rental stress and unable to afford a home due to Labor government policies and deceit. We disagree on how to fix it. There’s absolutely nothing that can be done to fix the housing and rental crisis until we cut the absolutely insane numbers of overseas arrivals this government is letting into our country. Excluding tourists and short-stay visa holders, there are 2.3 million visa holders in the country right now. Every single one of them needs a roof over their head, and that’s leading to record house prices and the lowest rental vacancy rate in history. Housing is tight and therefore expensive. It’s impossible to build enough houses or freeze enough prices to fix the housing problem until this immigration tidal wave is cut. What the Greens propose is going to increase rental costs. Instead of putting banks and big business first, put people first.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McGrath): Thank you, Senator Roberts. Senator Allman-Payne.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/2VpCeo1ylNo/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-11-23 15:17:042023-11-24 11:18:11Only Zero Net-Immigration Will Solve the Housing Crisis
I asked questions about the staggering numbers of new visa holders flooding into Australia — 5.8 million tourists visas issued in the last 12 months and 1.1 million work, student and permanent visas.
The Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs used up his allotted response time in a performance that involved pretending he didn’t really understand my question. He worked hard to reassign blame for the current situation, ignoring that it’s happening under his government’s watch.
He promoted Labor’s Housing Fund, which One Nation opposed. The scheme is a con that will build a few thousand homes in total and allows the Government to pretend the housing needs of the millions of people they are letting in can be met.
Labor is flooding the country with millions of new arrivals, and pretends housing is taken care of. It is not. The only way to fix the housing crisis is to turn the visa tap off until the housing stock catches up.
Transcripts
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt. Australia has 300,000 hotel rooms and 140,000 Airbnbs. These are, of course, turned over many times. There are 26 million Australians as well using these rooms for their own holidays. Into this small stock of rooms the Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that in financial year 2022-23 there were 5.86 million arrivals staying, on average, 14 days. Minister, has this almost 500 per cent increase in tourists under your government motivated landlords to move their property from long-term rental accommodation for everyday Australians to short-stay accommodation for hotel overflow?
Senator Watt (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management): Thank you, Senator Roberts. There’s a lot in that. It seems to be as much about tourism and housing as it is about migration, but I will attempt to answer the question. The figures that you quoted there—I can’t verify whether they are accurate or not. I presume the five million number that you said would include a substantial number of tourists. But, if your question relates to migration figures, the government has obviously already announced a number of measures to fix what is a hopelessly broken migration system that we inherited not just from the opposition but from the minister responsible for it: one Mr Peter Dutton. Mr Dutton was the Minister for Home Affairs for the bulk of the former government and oversaw the migration system that we’ve inherited, which allowed for rampant exploitation and allowed for abuse of the migration system in some cases by education providers that we see now, and we are taking steps to try to address that.
It’s a shame that the opposition, who have got a lot to say now, didn’t do a single thing about these issues when they were in government. We’ve ended the pandemic event visa, we’ve ended unlimited working hours for international students and work exemptions for working visa holders. We’re increased the temporary skilled migration income threshold, which is the first increase in a decade. These are some of the steps that our government has taken to fix the hopelessly broken migration system that was presided over by Mr Dutton as the home affairs minister. I don’t know, Senator Roberts, whether that directly addresses your question because, as I say, there was a lot in it. But we’re taking steps to try to fix the migration system once and for all.
First Supplementary Question
The President: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: According to departmental data in the 2022-23 financial year the department issued a record 687,000 student visas. Not many have departed because, due to COVID, most have only been here less than a year. Minister, Australia has 100,000 dedicated student accommodation beds. Where are the other 500,000 or so students staying?
Senator Watt: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I don’t think you’d expect that I’d be able to give you a precise address for every single international student who is living in Australia at the moment. But, as I say, if those opposite had complaints about the number of international students who are in Australia at the moment, perhaps they could have done something about the system when they were in government for 10 years. Perhaps they could have done that.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator Watt: So now you’re not supporting him. Senator Canavan is supporting Senator Roberts, but the Liberals aren’t in agreement. Where are the coalition on these issues? Nationals are saying one thing, Liberals are saying another, and here is one of them.
The President: Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Hughes, on a point of order?
Senator Hughes: Perhaps you could encourage Minister Watt to direct his answers through you rather than people who didn’t ask the question.
The President: I will certainly do that, Senator Hughes, and I will also direct, particularly those on my left, to stop interjecting with their comments. It is disrespectful. Minister Watt, please make your remarks through the chair.
Senator Watt: President, it is interesting to see that there seems to be a split between the Liberal and the National parties on this issue. Senator Canavan and the other Nationals are backing in One Nation, and the Liberals are wanting to run a mile. But, of course, apart from fixing the migration system, this government is doing more than the former government ever did when it came to the provision of housing, and, just to remind you of one measure, Housing Australia— (Time expired)
Second Supplementary Question
The President: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: In the last financial year the department issued a record 441,000 business visas plus a record 195,000 permanent migrant visas plus another 10,000 humanitarian visas plus another 47,000 temporary work visas. After departures, the net increase here was another 500,000. Minister, where are these 500,000 people going to stay, and is this insane level of intake the reason that Australians can no longer find an affordable home?
Senator Watt: In your previous question, Senator Roberts, you did acknowledge that one of the reasons that we have seen a spike in migration is that there has been a return to Australia of international students and workers—and tourists for that matter—since COVID, so it’s no surprise that we have seen an increase in migration numbers, given there were at least a couple of years when people basically couldn’t come to Australia, and there was always going to be a degree of catch-up in there. You ask what we are doing about housing, and again what I say is that this government has done more certainly than the last coalition government and probably more than any other Australian government to fix the issues that we do have around housing—and they are very real. We didn’t see investment from the former coalition government in public housing for nearly 10 years, and we are fixing that. We’re delivering the Housing Australia Future Fund, which, Senator Roberts, I remember you voted against last time. You cared so much about housing that you voted against a fund that was going to build more homes! We’re also providing more money for social housing and rental assistance. (Time expired)
https://img.youtube.com/vi/lvZKCYgU17c/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-11-23 11:31:042023-11-23 12:53:37Minister Uses Question Time to Pass the Buck on New Arrivals and Housing
I asked Minister Gallagher questions about the government’s immigration policy which is bringing large numbers of new arrivals into Australia. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has released figures that show that spending from new arrivals is running interference on the Reserve Bank’s attempts to cut inflation rates.
The Minister’s defence was to, once again, blame the previous government, then COVID and then she made the claim that many of the new arrivals were just returning Australians.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Australian Bureau of Statistics data and the Reserve Bank for the June quarter reveals that Australian’s spending fell while new-arrival’s spending increased, because the number of new arrivals increased. Minister, the government’s policy of bringing so many new arrivals to shore up domestic demand is acting against the Reserve Bank’s low-inflation strategy. Why do you have your foot on the accelerator while the Reserve Bank has its foot on the brake?
Senator Gallagher: I thank Senator Roberts for the question. I disagree with it, and I don’t accept that we are not working alongside the Reserve Bank. They have their job to do, which is to bring inflation back within the target band without crunching the economy. We have our job to do, which is to implement our economic plan and roll out, as I said before, the cost-of-living relief to get the budget in much better shape, which we have done, and to make much overdue investments into energy, skills and housing across the country, which are causing pressure in other areas of the economy.
In terms of the population growth, or what we’ve been seeing from the net overseas migration numbers in particular—we’ve spoken about this in this place on a number of times—we are seeing some of the results of having our borders closed, essentially, for a couple of years. So we’re seeing people returning to this country, particularly international students to study, at a time when we’re not seeing as many leaving the country. We are seeing that, and that’s reflected in the budget numbers.
But I can absolutely guarantee, Senator Roberts, that we are working with the Reserve Bank. The decisions that we take are about not making their job harder. It’s an already difficult job that they are doing, and our job is to support that in the areas that we have responsibility for, which is to deal with that cost-of-living relief, to get the budget in much better shape, which we have done, and to invest in the productive side of our economy into things like the energy transition, skills and housing, which are areas that were left neglected after a decade—
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Minister. Senator Roberts, a first supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows that in the June quarter new private house commencements fell 6.6 per cent and new private apartment commencements fell 19.6 per cent. Minister, in line with the Reserve Bank’s 13 interest rate rises, housing construction is falling when you need to build more homes for all the Albanese government arrivals. What are you going to do—pump up the economy with more arrivals, causing more inflation and more interest rate rises, or accept that you made a mistake and put the brakes on new arrivals?
Senator Gallagher: I would just say that we have not changed the policy settings that were in place around net overseas migration, so your characterisation is incorrect. In response to some of the economic data you cite, yes, we are seeing moderation in a couple of areas, and that is because many Australians are doing it tough right now, and the Reserve Bank is trying to lower demand with some of the decisions that they’ve been taking. So, yes, we are seeing that translate into other areas of economic data, but I would also say to the senator, who voted against the Housing Australia Future Fund, that our housing policies are about dealing with this long-term underinvestment and failure to acknowledge that the Commonwealth government has a role to support the construction and delivery of social and affordable housing. That is the area the Commonwealth neglected in the previous decade. We have a range of policies targeted to housing to address—
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Minister. Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Talking misinformation about your housing bill won’t save this government. Everyday Australians know they can’t afford their rent or mortgage, and they know your government is swamping the country with even more arrivals. Minister, why are you papering over your economic mismanagement and running an immigration Ponzi scheme?
Senator Gallagher: That question is simply incorrect. I would say that there is a huge amount of work that’s being done by the Home Affairs minister and the immigration minister to fix the broken system that we inherited, and we’ll have more to say on that shortly as the work that they are doing is finalised. But it’s simply not true to allege what you are alleging. We have inherited a migration system that the minister herself has said is broken, so we are dealing with issues to fix that.
But, in relation to some of the numbers that we’ve been seeing, particularly in relation to international students and working holiday-makers who have returned to the country with valid visas after the borders had been closed, just because you say ‘misinformation’ doesn’t mean it is misinformation. These are the facts; let’s deal with the facts. We accept that there is pressure in the housing market, which is why we’re responding to deal with it.
Data from Home Affairs and analysed by Tarric Brooker shows there are 2.3 million visa holders likely to require housing in Australia right now excluding tourists and other short stay visas.
Almost every Australian in a rental saw their rent increase during the past three years and around three-quarters of young Australians believe they will never be able to afford a home.
Added to these problems we’re seeing Airbnb conversions taking accommodation off the rental market.
Australia’s housing crisis is a direct result of the Albanese government’s flood of permanent immigration visa holders and tourists.
Transcript
We know that the conversion of houses to Airbnbs take away beds in which Australians could be living. The Albanese government oversaw over 5.86 million tourists arrive last financial year that. That’s creating a huge incentive for property owners to turn their houses into lucrative short-stay accommodation, making the housing and rental crisis worse. We have only 100,000 student accommodation beds, yet the Albanese government issued a record 687,000 student visas in one year. Analyst Tarric Brooker has used Department of Home Affairs data to show that there are 2.3 million visa holders likely to require housing in the country right now. This figure excludes tourists and short-stay visas.
In the past three years, almost every Australian in a rental has had their rent increased, often savagely—if they can find a rental. Almost three-quarters of young Australians believe they will never be able to afford a home. If this rate of people coming into the country is maintained, sadly, they will be correct. Australia’s housing crisis is a direct result of the Albanese government’s flood of permanent immigration, visa holders and tourists.
There are two sides of the housing equation: supply and demand. With record overseas arrivals driving record levels of demand, we will never be able to build enough supply to keep up with demand. On the supply side, barriers to building even more housing are growing. Rising interest rates are putting pressure on borrowing capacity to pay for new houses. Construction supply chains are still broken from gross federal and state COVID mismanagement. Rising material costs, combined with existing fixed price contracts, are squeezing builders, and the construction industry is facing a wave of insolvencies. The unsustainable level of overseas arrivals in our country is fuelling Australia’s housing crisis. The rate of arrivals must be cut quickly.
I asked three simple questions of the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs and yet again, Senator Watt turned the Senate Chamber into a circus to his obvious amusement and wasted precious time.
Does the government control the level of immigration into Australia? Yes or No? And how many net overseas migrants will arrive in Australia this year?
The Treasurer earlier this year stated that the government had no control over immigration numbers, yet this is not the case. Was this ‘misinformation’?
The Minister gave no specific answers and once again attempted to direct attention back to the previous government and promoted the Labor’s utterly useless housing bill.
Transcript
My question is to Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Watt. Does the government control the level of immigration into Australia?
Senator WATT: Senator Roberts, I note your interest all week in these matters of migration, and the short answer is that under governments of all persuasions, including those who are having a chuckle over there at the moment, the immigration program in Australia is demand driven. That has been the case under this government and the former government as well.
Senator Roberts: Point of order: it was a very simple, short question. It needs a yes or no answer. That’s it.
The PRESIDENT: The minister is being relevant, Senator Roberts. I presume you’ve finished your answer, Minister Watt?
Senator WATT: As I say—
Senator Canavan: It’s just a yes or no answer, Murray!
Senator WATT: Yes, it’s quite normal for ministers who represent others to look at their notes. Senator Canavan, we can’t all be the genius that you are. You are a genius—I pay that—especially when you get into your dark web and your bunker and you dig out all those statistics. You’re an absolute genius!
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Minister Watt, resume your seat. Order across the chamber, but particularly on my left.
Senator Ayres: Yes, old Telegram Matt!
The PRESIDENT: Senator Ayres, you have a lot to say this afternoon. This is question time. Minister Watt, I’m asking you to refer your comments to me and not to particular senators. Please continue.
Senator WATT: I know Senator Rennick was a bit offended by the fact I singled out Senator Canavan as the only genius in the opposition and the only person who could get into the bunker and find statistics, because we know Senator Rennick is pretty good at that as well.
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes. I haven’t called you, and I haven’t called you because the chamber was still disorderly. Senator Hughes.
Senator Hughes: President, you’ve made very clear this week, and we have heard from those opposite—
The PRESIDENT: What’s your point of order, Senator Hughes?
Senator Hughes: I would like Minister Watt to withdraw a whole raft of his commentary and reflections on a number of senators over here and his continual snarky personal smears and vilifications.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, if you want to raise a point of order about unparliamentary or personal language related to a senator, I need their name at least.
Senator Hughes: I said Minister Watt!
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, don’t backchat once you’re sitting down. You indicated that the minister had had a spray against a range of senators. I have no idea who that was. I am not going to make it up or guess it, so unless you have—
Senator Hughes: I literally said it multiple times!
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, you’ve raised the point of order. You haven’t named a particular senator. You’ve indicated to me who in your view made the offence but you haven’t said about which senator.
Senator Hughes: I said it multiple times. Would you like to check the Hansard?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, resume your seat. Minister Wong.
Senator Wong: I think the difficulty—through you, President—is it was a generalised proposition that the senator was making. If there is a request to withdraw particular language that has just been said—
Senator Hughes: We got multiple lectures this week.
Senator Wong: If that is the request, I’m sure the—
Senator Hughes interjecting—
Senator Wong: Okay. I’m just saying that a generalised proposition is a difficult one to respond to.
Senator Hughes interjecting—
Senator Wong: I’m trying to assist here.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Birmingham.
Senator Wong: I haven’t finished.
The PRESIDENT: I’m sorry, I thought you had finished, Senator Wong.
Senator Wong: Thank you. I was just waiting. The proposition—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Do you wish to continue?
Senator Wong: There is a generalised complaint about Senator Watt saying things about a number of people. I don’t know what those are, but if the request is that Senator Watt withdraw particular language that’s just been used—
Senator Scarr interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Scarr, no interjections.
Senator Wong: All I’m saying if there is a request to—
Senator Hughes: And he continues!
Senator Wong: Wow. I’m really trying. If there is a request to withdraw particular language now, I would ask the President to call the minister.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Birmingham?
Senator Birmingham: Thank you, President. I did want to pick up on one part of your ruling there, which was to suggest it was necessary for the senator to name a particular senator who had been impugned. I will make it clear that it is possible for groups of senators to be impugned or to have improper motives attributed to them by a senator and that is also against standing orders.
The PRESIDENT: That’s correct.
Senator Birmingham: President, as you’re well aware, it’s not necessary always for a senator to make a point of order and, in the spirit of this week, it would be helpful for strong proactive intervention if senators can’t restrain themselves to actually ask them immediately to withdraw. Preferably they would restrain themselves, Senator Watt.
Senator Watt interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: I haven’t called you, Senator Watt. I am going to respond to those points of order. I am not in the chamber all the time. That’s the point that I made in the statement to the chamber yesterday. It is very difficult for me to ask a senator to withdraw when I don’t know where that language has landed. I take your point, Senator Birmingham, that a slur can be made against a group of senators. That’s not what Senator Hughes was implying. My understanding of what was indicated was that the minister had made, in Senator Hughes’s view, a number of comments to senators throughout the week, not to a group of senators. However, I know that Senator Watt is always willing to own his behaviour and I will, as Senator Watt—
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: For the benefit of those interjections, a number of you are always willing, on both sides of the chamber, to withdraw. Some of you are not but most of you are. So I am going to invite Senator Watt, if he thinks he has offended senators this week, to make a general withdrawal without making any comment to comments that you may or may not have uttered.
Senator WATT: I make a general withdrawal.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, please continue.
Senator WATT: Senator Roberts, the government does have a range of controls in place around the numbers of migrants coming into Australia, the categories of those migrants, whether they be international students or tourists, humanitarian, skilled workers so the government does have a range of controls around the numbers and types of migrants who come into Australia. I think I know where you’re going with this, because you have followed these issues all week and I point out that we haven’t really seen a lot of consistency from the opposition on matters of migration either, because what we do know is that, for instance, when the now immigration spokesperson, the member for Wannon, was in government he was saying things like, ‘We need to get our international students back. We need to get our working holiday-maker visa holders back.’
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts: On a point of order, that’s not relevant to what I asked.
The PRESIDENT: I’ll bring you back to the question, Minister Watt. You’ve finished. Senator Roberts, your first supplementary?
Transcript: First Supplementary Question
Senator ROBERTS: On 15 May, Treasurer Jim Chalmers told Australia that the level of net overseas migration is ‘not something the government determines’. Minister, is that a lie, given your government issues the visas and decides who comes to this country? Why are you letting immigration spiral out of control while hundreds of thousands of Australians are homeless?
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, I am going to ask you to rephrase that question.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that misinformation, given your government issues the visas and decides who comes to this country? Why are you letting immigration spiral out of control while hundreds of thousands of Australians are homeless?
Senator WATT: I reject the suggestion that the Treasurer has misrepresented the facts on this issue. It is a really important issue that Australia is dealing with at the moment. But, Senator Roberts, in answer to similar questions from you over the course of the week, I’ve pointed out a number of steps the government have taken to fix the fundamentally broken migration system that we inherited from the opposition and, in particular, from the now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, who oversaw the migration system as the Minister for Home Affairs for a number of years.
We’ve already scaled back the pandemic event visa. We’re taking action about the working hours for international students, which has been a real drawcard for international students coming to Australia. We’ve made all sorts of improvements to Home Affairs, in terms of its processing of visa applications. And, of course, when it comes to housing, as I’ve pointed out to you already, you and your colleagues have an opportunity to vote for more housing and you chose to vote against it.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, your second supplementary?
Transcript: Second Supplementary Question
Senator ROBERTS: How many overseas immigrants, net, will arrive in Australia this financial year?
Senator WATT: Again, I know that we’ve addressed this issue in previous answers, both in chis chamber and in estimates, and the issues around the number of net overseas migrants is a matter that is handled by the Treasury. I’ve already acknowledged in previous answers on these questions that post COVID, when we had a couple of years of pretty much zero migration to Australia, it was always inevitable that there was going to be an increase in that migration as we had tourists, working holiday-maker visa holders and skilled migrants coming back into the country. That is exactly one of the reasons why our government is trying to fix the broken migration system that we inherited and trying to build more homes, despite your opposition and that of the coalition.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts: On a point of order, I asked the question: how much net immigration this year?
The PRESIDENT: The minister explained it is a question that should be directed to Treasury, and the minister was answering it in his capacity. The minister has finished.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/J7tBQvIAKwk/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-11-14 14:35:582023-11-14 17:52:59What Will it Take to Get a Straight Answer?
I asked Home Affairs if $400 million in annual running costs was reasonable. In their opinion it is reasonable, however what exactly are Australians paying for? I couldn’t get an answer out of them about how many people the facility can hold. We know there were two people there until a boat interception took place in September, which means the facility is now playing host to another 11 residents.
This facility is a sinkhole for hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars. The department is tight-lipped about details around the cost-effectiveness of this clearing facility. I touched on Senator Lambie’s question about a potential threat to our security which came from a whistleblower. The Minister responded and a statement was provided to allay any concerns around the vetting of asylum seekers in the current geopolitical climate.
How much does Nauru cost per person? I don’t think we’d like the answer. It isn’t reasonable at all to expect Australians to foot the bill for this facility without a breakdown of the costs versus the benefits. We need better decisions around asylum seekers and better outcomes at a time when too many Australians are struggling to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.
$400 million for a handful of asylum seekers doesn’t make sense, so who is profiting out of this?
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My questions have to do with the costs and, since hearing some things in the last two hours, the cost-effectiveness of maintaining Nauru. We’ve learned that there were two people in detention on Nauru until September and now there are 13; correct?
Ms Foster: There are two people on island. We didn’t say they were in detention. There are now 11 people who are being held in the regional processing facility. I just make that distinction—that there are 11 people being detained in that facility and there are two others on island.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that clarification. The two people are free to roam, are they?
Ms Foster: I’ll ask Mr Thomas to help me here.
Mr Thomas: There are different circumstances for the individuals. I’m just trying to think of the best way to explain this, noting the privacy reasons for the individuals.
Ms Foster: We are hesitating only because it’s a small number of individuals and speaking about their particular circumstances could well identify people and be an invasion of privacy. They are in different stages of arrangements with the Nauruan government. That meant that they were unable to leave Nauru earlier this year.
Senator ROBERTS: So they are not in detention but are living in Nauru?
Mr Thomas: They are not in the regional processing centre. So they are not part of the regional processing detention arrangements in terms of their location.
Senator ROBERTS: How much is it costing taxpayers per year to maintain Nauru as an offshore processing facility for asylum seekers?
Ms Cargill: In relation to regional processing, the portfolio budget statement for 2023-24 lays out the project budget for IMA offshore management. For 2023-24 the budget is $400 million.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the capacity in terms of the number of people it can hold?
Mr Thomas: It varies depending on the make-up of any individuals in that. There are a number of facilities in Nauru associated with regional processing.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total capacity?
Mr Thomas: It will depend on the make-up of any grouping—for example, family groupings, different genders and different ages. There might be requirements to house people differently. It just depends on the make- up. It’s variable. Different sites will come online at different times to accommodate different numbers of individuals depending on the make-up of them.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand it’s complex, but what would be a rough estimate of, in practice, what you could hold at Nauru?
Mr Thomas: I’m sorry. I hesitate to give you an estimate of the number just because it goes to operational capability.
Senator ROBERTS: How many single males could be held there?
Mr Thomas: For the same reason, putting that number out in public would potentially breach operational sensitivity.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go, then, to the arrivals. I think a few of us were caught by surprise that there had been arrivals. How many new arrivals have arrived at Nauru since May 2022?
Mr Thomas: Just the recent 11.
Senator ROBERTS: That it? Okay. That’s September. Can you give us the breakdown by gender and age?
Mr Thomas: As noted to the previous senator, I am hesitant to provide that level of detail. I will take it on notice and come back to the committee.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Also, I’d like to know their source in terms of where they boarded the boat and their country of origin.
Mr Thomas: Same as previously, I would ask any operational questions be directed to the ABF at the next outcome.
Senator ROBERTS: On your figure of $400 million per year as a cost, is that reasonable to maintain an offshore facility?
Mr Thomas: The short answer is yes in terms of the requirements to maintain the facilities and services, noting that the enduring capability requires a certain baseline level of capability to keep it at a ready state.
Senator ROBERTS: The key, Minister, is to ensure Australia selects who enters and that we allow no security risk; correct?
Senator Watt: I said before that I’m confident that the security issues surrounding individuals are taken into account by ministers.
Senator ROBERTS: The key is to ensure that Australia selects who enters our country?
Senator Watt: Yes, that is obviously the Australian government’s position.
Senator ROBERTS: And a big part of that is to make sure there are no security risks coming in?
Senator Watt: Yes. There are always, whatever type of entrant to Australia we are talking about, basic health and security checks that are undertaken.
Senator ROBERTS: Surely the best way to reassure the people as to whether or not Hamas sympathisers are coming in is to produce the facts? That’s all Senator Lambie was asking for.
Senator Watt: Yes, there are, and surely the best way to not inflame the community is to have some evidence for making those sorts of claims, like those you’re making now, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Unfortunately, with this misinformation-disinformation bill and so on being bandied around by the Labor government—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you know that’s not—
Senator ROBERTS: Senator Lambie said quite clearly to you that she got inside information. She’s not going to give you the names.
Senator Watt: I know, and we are getting this matter checked. But, Senator Roberts, I would encourage you and all senators be really, really sure of what you’re saying if you’re going to suggest that terrorist sympathisers are entering Australia. That is a very big call to make, and—
Senator ROBERTS: That’s an inflation of what I said.
Senator Watt: at a time when the community is really worried, understandably, around the Middle East conflict—and we’re seeing a lot of tension within the community—it doesn’t help to suggest, without providing evidence to back it up, that terrorist sympathisers are entering the country.
Senator ROBERTS: Chair, I did not suggest anything. I was supporting Senator Lambie’s call. Senator Watt, what you’re saying means that you need to be very, very clear and very, very prompt.
Senator Watt: We’ve got a bit of an update on this matter, and it might be helpful for Ms Foster—
Senator ROBERTS: Did you hear what I just said?
Senator Watt: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: You need to be clear and prompt in your answers—
Senator Watt: We are—
Senator ROBERTS: and not make sensational claims.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, the minister is attempting to answer your question while you’re interrupting him doing so. If we could get that update, that would be helpful, I think.
Senator Watt: Ms Foster has an update, yes.
Ms Foster: Senator, we undertook to get back as quickly as possible in response to Senator Lambie’s question. I can provide an assurance that no-one with security or terror links has been brought to Australia for a temporary purpose. I understand Senator Lambie may have been informed that there were some, amongst the cohort, who had character concerns; that’s a much broader definition. The ministerial intervention process allows consideration for management in Australia for individuals with character issues, including keeping them in held detention. Some of these, of course, may have been resettled in third countries.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Foster. Thank you, Chair.
CHAIR: Thank you very much, Senator Roberts. I’m glad we got that answer in the end.
I asked Senator Tim Ayres, Assistant Minister for Trade, why the Albanese Labor government has allowed one million people to arrive in this country in just one year. Those one million arrivals is made up of around half migration and half student visas. Every single person need a bed and a roof over their head. There’s also an additional 200,000 arrivals with other visas. That’s a total of 1.2 million people, making a population flood the size of Adelaide in just 12 months.
The housing and rental crisis is completely government made. If your rent has gone up, you can’t afford a house, you can’t even find a place to live like those in regional Queensland towns living in caravans, tents, in parks, in cars and under bridges, remember this Labor government brought in over 1,000,000 people into this country in just one year.
With this bill, the Albanese government is claiming that it will build a few thousand houses to ‘fix the problem’. Supply chains for materials are still damaged from the government’s COVID response. Those shattered supply chains are further hobbled under Australia following the United Nations’ 2050 policy driving up energy costs.
The Greens want more houses built, but they won’t let us use timber. In fact, they have a bill on notice to end logging of sustainable forestry. Timber is a renewable resource yet we can’t harvest the wood for the frames. What about steel frames then? The two main ingredients for steel are coal and iron ore,which are Australia’s two major mining commodities, yet the Greens want to end all mining in Australia.
The Greens SAY they want to build more houses, yet if Australia implemented all their policies we’d have no wood, no steel and only expensive and unreliable sources of energy to build these houses.
A cut to immigration would allow our housing and essential services time to catch up.
As you will hear, Senator Ayres completely failed to address my concerns.
Transcripts
Minister, I’m a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia. In that capacity, I note that this bill is completely unnecessary. It’s not needed. Here’s why: if the government cut Australia’s immigration intake by just 10 per cent of the current one million arrivals, it would save the building of many more houses than Labor claims this fund will build. The housing crisis will lessen. Instead, we are here dealing with dirty deals done dirt cheap. The deals are cheap for the Greens, yet taxpayers will be paying billions. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I note that the people of Australia are disgusted to look at this parliament and see the rotten horse-trading and deal-making going on. The Greens hold themselves up on their moral high horse and virtue-signal to the world that they are the pure ones while telling everyone what to do. In reality, they’re down in the mud doing dirty deals like the rest of them.
What deal do we have to look at today? The government is going to build and own houses—not the people of Australia but the government. This is full-blown communism delivered express to your door. As the infamous Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum has repeatedly told the world already, ‘You will own nothing, and you will be happy.’ The goal of the Greens and Labor is to come into this chamber to preach to the world that they’re helping Australians—helping you. The Greens’ rent caps have already led directly to faster rent increases, because landlords understandably want to get ahead of the rent caps. The Greens are already hurting renters. The housing crisis is a problem that government created entirely.
The government is now claiming to have the solution. That’s a fraud, Minister. The Albanese Labor government has allowed one million people to arrive in this country in just one year. That’s 460,000 in net migration and 540,000 students visas. Every one of those needs a bed and a roof over their head. That’s not to mention the additional 200,000 other visas. That’s 1.2 million. A population flood the size of Adelaide has hit this country in 12 months. That’s the cause of the housing and rental crisis. It’s completely government made. If your rent has gone up, you can’t afford a house or you can’t even find a place to live, like the people in regional Queensland towns living in caravans, tents, parks and cars and under bridges. Just remember this: the Albanese Labor government brought one million people into this country in one year.
With this bill, the Albanese government is claiming that it will build a few thousand houses and fix the problem. Who will build them? Supply chains for materials are still damaged due to the government’s COVID reaction and mismanagement, which shattered supply chains. The energy crisis has been inflicted due to the government adopting the UN 2050 net zero policy and driving up energy costs. Australia’s tradies already build houses at the fourth-fastest rate in the OECD. There’s a question that has to be answered: can we more quickly build even more houses? Trying to flood this industry that is already at capacity with huge amounts of taxpayer money is only going to make the funnel spill over. That will mean millions and potentially billions of your taxes wasted. Let’s not forget the government’s figures. They think they can build a house in Australia for $83,000. What kind of house is that? They must be smoking some powerful stuff over in the ministry for housing. It doesn’t matter how many billions this government wants to spend; we will never be able to build enough houses to catch up with the current rate of immigration. That is a clear fact. It’s basic arithmetic. It’s practical.
Next: what do the Greens want us to use to build these houses? They won’t let us use timber. There is a bill on the Notice Paper right now that the Greens introduced to end sustainable forest logging. Timber is the only resource that’s truly renewable, yet the Greens have a bill saying we can’t harvest the wood used in house frames while claiming with this bill that they want to build more houses. I guess that is okay. We can just build houses with steel frames, right? Not according to the Greens. Too many ingredients in making steel are coal and iron ore, Australia’s two major mining commodities. The Greens want to end mining in Australia, so we would have nothing with which to make the steel. So the Greens say they want to build more houses—virtue signalling—yet if Australia implemented their policies we would have no steel, no wood with which to build houses. And if our coal, iron ore and timber industries survived the Greens blight, prices of house timber and steel will be far higher thanks to the Greens restrictions. The hypocrisy is so damn thick we could cut it with a knife.
The Greens policies are antihuman. One Nation’s policy includes many solutions to the government-created housing crisis, taken together holistically because the problem is many factored. Among these immediate solutions to the housing crisis is that we must cut immigration immediately, reduce our arrivals to zero net immigration, meaning only allow the same number of people into the country as the number that leave so departures cancel out arrivals. As Australians know, this country is already bursting at the seams. A cut to immigration would allow our housing stock, our essential services—hospitals, our schools—and other services time to catch up. If we don’t stop immigration or cut immigration, life is going to get far, far worse for Australians, and it is already getting bad with the cost of living being the No. 1 problem on people’s minds. To continue this unprecedented immigration intake in the face of the housing and cost-of-living crisis is an act of criminal negligence against the Australian people.
Minister, why is the government allowing one million students and permanent migrants into the country in just 12 months? How many houses does the government expect the million student and permanent migrant arrivals will need? How many houses does the government expect to build in 12 months? How many houses will the government’s allocation of taxpayer funds build?
Senator Ayres (Assistant Minister for Trade and Assistant Minister for Manufacturing): There was, in fact, a question at the end there. The government does not support the policy prescription that you’ve offered on migration. While you can hear echoes of the proposition that you’ve just put in relation to migration in some of what is best described as circular comments of the Leader of the Opposition on migration and housing, in fact, migration will be an important part and has been an important part of the housing industry in Australia since World War II. In fact, if you spend time on any building site in Australia, what you will find are migrants, permanent and temporary—mostly permanent—who in fact make up a very large part of the labour force building homes, building apartment blocks, building shopping centres all over Australia.
The government’s migration settings will be made over time and will be made in the national interest. I hear your argument with your colleagues down here in the Greens’ political party. The government has always made it very clear: where there are constructive suggestions from anyone on the crossbench we will work with people—senators and members—across the parliament in the national interest where there are sensible amendments proposed to reach agreement on legislation in its passage through this parliament.
There is nothing like the disappointment of a crossbench senator who doesn’t feel like they’ve got their way in the process, but I’ve heard the complaints from crossbench senators over the short time I have been here. I’ll just assure you, and all of the crossbench senators, that the government’s approach has been consistent in terms of this legislation and will be consistent in the future. Where there are opportunities for constructive discussion about government legislation then we will engage in that.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/7dsZpTtVEtw/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-10-05 10:54:542023-10-09 10:22:19Heads in the Sand as Immigration Fuels the Housing Crisis
Pauline Hanson’s One Nation has been warning of the impact of high migration on Australia for 25 years. We have been talking about the strain on health, housing, transport, crime and schools in particular.
All of those warnings have now come true. Australians can no longer afford housing, their mortgage or rental payments, or their electricity bills. Jobs are hard to find and breadwinner jobs are even harder to find.
All of this comes back to the rate of immigration over the last 25 years. It did not need to be this way.
Had the government listened to Pauline, we would have seen money going into schools, hospitals, police stations and housing to meet the demand from new Australians. This did not happen and now look at the problems we have.
One Nation will get the economy going again to create breadwinner jobs, get housing construction and infrastructure underway, and secure a future for all Australians.
Transcript
I want to turn my attention to another topic.
In 1996 Pauline Hanson named her new party ‘One Nation’ as an expression of her heartfelt belief that this beautiful nation must include all Australians, fairly and equally. She and I serve the people of Queensland and Australia. No single group should be favoured over another and no-one should be denied opportunity.
One Nation is committed to the belief that we must give all Australians the same opportunity to lift themselves up through their own hard work and endeavour. And we must provide a safety net for those who can’t provide for themselves. Where one group in our community is trailing behind, then the solution is not arbitrary or forced inclusion. That didn’t work in the Soviet Union and it will not work in Prime Minister Albanese’s soviet republic of Australia. Why? Because it doesn’t actually solve the problem of why people have fallen behind in the first place. It does, though, let politicians and compliant community leaders off the hook. ‘See here,’ they go. ‘Look at this thing we are doing. Aren’t we wonderful, vote for us and you too can feel good.’ Not solve anything, just feel good, look good. Not do good, just paper over the problems and pretend to do good.
One Nation stands for solutions not feelings. We will build the east-west corridor across the Top End, bringing power, water, rail transport and the internet to remote Aboriginal communities, opening up markets, expanding job opportunities, educational opportunities and tourism, which we know exposes the world to Aboriginal culture. And that’s a good thing. One Nation will build the Great Dividing Range project to bring environmentally responsible hydropower—cheap power—and water to North Queensland to drive agriculture and tertiary processing, adding tens of billions to our national wealth. One Nation will build the Hughenden Irrigation Project, the Urannah dam and hydro project, the Emu Swamp dam and the Big Buffalo dam in Victoria. All of these will make more productive use of land already in use for agriculture so as to grow more food and fibre to feed and clothe the world. This is the difference between One Nation and the parties of feelings. We offer Australians natural wholesome food and natural fibres, while the tired old parties in this place offer you bugs and used clothes.
What I don’t understand is the black armband view of prosperity that permeates the policies of the old parties in this place. Abundance is not a dirty word. Abundance is not mutuality exclusive with environmental responsibility. The attack on the food and manufacturing sectors is one of ideology, not environmentalism. It’s about controlling us using deliberately created scarcities. Food scarcities and energy scarcity are deliberately created and can be easily corrected by a One Nation government. Soviet politics of oppression are not the Australian way.
Australia is a place where a coalminer born in India can become a senator, where the daughter of a migrant from a war-torn country can come to Australia and find not only peace and prosperity but a place amongst the leaders of our beautiful country and where a refugee from the fall of Saigon can come to Australia stateless and take her place in the House of Representatives. There are so many examples just in this parliament of how Australia’s proud history of equality of opportunity has lifted up those who have chosen to embrace the opportunity given to them. Equality of opportunity though does not mean equality of outcome. I remember a story about a wise old Russian, just a regular citizen of the Soviet Union, and the Soviet approach to mandatory equality. The wise old Russian drew a series of stick figures of different heights on a piece of paper, and then he said, ‘In the Soviet Union everyone is equal,’ and proceeded to draw a line across the page to the height of the smallest figure. The heads of the successful were chopped off to bring everyone down to the height of the worst performing. That’s, indeed, how socialism works. That’s why the Soviet Union failed, and it’s why left-wing ideology permeating this government is failing and will fail.
What people do with the opportunity they’re given is their own business. Governments cannot provide an equality of outcome, because governments cannot control how people handle the opportunity we are all given. As a government, we can only ensure every Australian has access to a breadwinner job, a home that suits their needs, a safe community, transport, education, health care and, of course, a safety net. The rest is up to the individual. But mark my words: depriving Australians of these core government functions, no matter the geography or the background, will not be tolerated.
Sadly, deprivation is exactly what is happening not just in remote Australia but in our cities as well. After attending public forums across Queensland in the last few weeks, it’s obvious there is a failure to deliver basic government services by Premier Palaszczuk and by successive federal governments. Feelings will not fix failure—they just lead people into false security. Ideas, vision and hard work will fix Australia. One Nation is ready to take up the challenge. We have the policies, and Senator Hanson stands ready to lead. I must say the fire burns as strongly as ever in the heart of Australia’s favourite redhead.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/160523-Capture.jpg?fit=596%2C525&ssl=1525596Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-05-17 10:55:212023-05-17 11:11:05Join me this Saturday at Parkwood Village to talk about fixing the Housing, Rental and Congestion Crisis.
A Ponzi scheme is a scam that can only continue as long as new victims sign up. Eventually, the scam falls down under its own weight.
The major parties’ “Big Immigration” plan for Australia works the same way.
Politicians have relied on ever-increasing levels of immigration for decades.
[1] ABS
Immigrants grow the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The GDP is a measure of all the economic activity happening in the country. Every purchase, sale and government dollar spent counts towards the total GDP.
Every new immigrant that arrives needs to spend money to survive, as we all do. This spending on food, housing and other essentials all adds in to the total GDP of the country.
Politicians want higher GDP numbers. If total GDP shrinks for two quarters in a row, the country is defined as being in a recession. Going into a recession is a political disaster for government. They want to avoid it at all costs.
The government’s solution to avoid an ugly recession is easy: just keep immigration levels high and the total GDP will keep going up!
The problem is, total GDP doesn’t measure how good our lives are. It doesn’t measure affordability, access to services or happiness. The average GDP per-person (or per-capita) tells us more.
In fact, before COVID, Australia was in a “per-capita recession”.[2] This means that while the total GDP was still going up because of immigration, the average GDP per person was actually getting worse.
Everything seemed fine to the government. On paper, total GDP was going up so we weren’t in an official recession. Out in the real world, the economy was getting worse on average for every individual Australian.
Like any Ponzi scheme, the immigration scam will eventually buckle under its own weight. As more immigrants arrive, they put more pressure on our hospitals, roads, housing and rental markets and other infrastructure. The pressure builds up far quicker than we can build infrastructure to catch up to the population growth.
With more pressure on essential services, Australia is less productive, dragging down the average GDP. The Government notices this and has to increase immigration even more to keep the total GDP up, yet this immigration puts even more pressure on our essential services dragging the average GDP down again.
This continues in a vicious cycle. The total GDP keeps going up and life for the average Australian keeps getting worse. Increasing immigration is like pouring fuel on a fire that immigration started. As the problem gets worse, the government needs to bring in more immigration to cover it up.
At least 650,000 immigrants will arrive in Australia over the next two years, a surprise increase of more than 50 percent on forecasts in the October 2022 Budget.[3]
If this exponential increase is allowed to continue, eventually the economy and our essential services will buckle. We are already seeing the signs of Australia bursting at the seams.
Australia is already in the middle of a housing and rental crisis. Many young first-home buyers are completely priced out of the market. Desperate tenants continue to tell horror stories of unaffordable rent increases.
Every single one of the 650,000 arrivals will need to find a home, meaning the horror stories of today are just the start of the pain to come. We can’t build the houses quick enough, especially if the government locks up everyone’s’ land to save the Koala trees. The increased demand will skyrocket rents and make houses even more unaffordable.
The immediate decision we need to take as a country is clear. We must immediately cut immigration to net-zero. That means that Australia only takes the same amount of arrivals as people who depart the country.
We must use this time to build essential infrastructure. We need to allow essential services time to catch up to our current population level.
Most of all, we need the government to stop doing things to make themselves look good on paper, and actually look after Australians.
A big immigration plan hurts Australians. Tell the government no and stop the immigration ponzi scheme.
