← The Morning Edition
Loading summary
Transcript27 lines
- [00:05]
A
With the Liberal Party in a political death spiral, it was perhaps inevitable that when opposition leader Angus Taylor gave his budget reply speech last week, he'd swing for the fences. But would his much awaited immigration policy help fix our housing crisis by cutting down immigration numbers? I'm Samantha Salinger Morris and you're listening to the Morning Edition from the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald. Today, chief political commentator James Missola on what Angus Taylor means when he says his policy puts Australians first. It's May 19th. James, welcome back to the podcast.
- [00:47]
B
Good to be with you, Sam.
- [00:48]
A
Okay, so opposition leader Angus Taylor, he gave a big speech in Parliament last week and it was of course his response to the federal government's budget and immigration was Taylor's focus. So what exactly has he proposed?
- [01:02]
B
So it was a pretty far reaching plan that Angus Taylor put on the table. Sam. Basically he wants to see immigration levels cut by up to or around about 70%. He was a bit nonspecific about 70% against which year. But it looks like he's sort of talking, I think it was 21, 22 or 22, 23 when, you know, those early days when we started to open up again after Covid. So you're talking about sort of half a million people had come in that year. So 70% against that. I think, in fact, I think Angus Taylor said on Sunday that prospectively would get Australia down below 200,000 immigrants sort of coming, permanent immigrants rather coming per year.
- [01:42]
A
And so he's actually promised that the coalition will deliver what he's called one of the biggest cuts to immigration in Australian history. And he's tying it to the number of housing completions. So he said he would link the net overseas migration with the number of housing completions. So can you just briefly run us through what net overseas migration is and what this means to tie it to the number of housing completions in any given year?
- [02:05]
B
Yeah, net overseas migration, or the NOM, as you know, budget nerds call it, basically means the number of people moving to Australia permanently minus the number of people leaving Australia permanently in any given year. Now, you know, there are sort of specific definitions around, you know, what constitutes permanently leaving. And obviously people can still come back if they're citizens and what have you. But that's in a nutshell. Tying that number to housing is a new thing. It's something that's been spoken about before. No politician's actually done it before. And he's done that for a really specific reason. As you know, as we all know, housing is one of the most Keenly felt aspects of the cost of living sort of crisis, if you like, that we're living through at the moment in terms of high fuel and rising food prices. So why has he linked this to net overseas migration? Well, there's a simple reason. We need to be building more houses here. And he is, Angus Taylor, the opposition leader, seeking to capitalise on that discontent over housing that's out there in Australia, particularly in our major cities like Sydney and Melbourne, about things cost too much. It's too hard to get a rental, it's too hard to get onto the property market. When I go and inspect a place, there's 30 people in line, you know, that I'm competing with to buy or to rent or whatever it might be. So the idea is to say, well, if we hold back some of these people from moving, take fewer migrants, maybe in theory there'll be more houses available for the people that are already living here. So it's very much a sort of a populist play that he's making and
- [03:37]
A
to be really simplistic about it. So essentially, were the coalition to gain power, which is a big if at this point, and we'll get that to them a bit later, the policy would be what, that for every yearly intake of Australian migrants, like for every additional migrant that comes in, there'd have to be a new home built?
- [03:52]
B
Yeah, essentially it's as simple as that. It's a new house per migrant being completed, being constructed and completed, otherwise you don't get to come in.
- [04:01]
A
Okay, but it wasn't just housing that he was focusing on. Cause he's also proposing a change to the welfare system, essentially. So what has he proposed there?
- [04:09]
B
So I think what Angus Taylor's doing here, Sam, is tapping on the same, I guess, kind of populist impulse that he's tapping on or pressing on with the housing promise. So what Angus Taylor has said is that if you're a permanent resident, and we've got, I think from memory it's around 4 and a half, 5 million permanent residents in Australia. If you're a permanent resident in this country, not a citizen, you no longer would have access. You would no longer have access to, I think it's 17 different social welfare and benefits programs. So think of things like the ndis, think of, I guess, you know, unemployment benefits, things like that. Medicare would not be included in this. But it's essentially what he's saying is these programs are for real Australians who are actually signed up, you know, sworn in citizens of the country. If people want to have the benefit of living here and the literal benefits offered by the government, then they have to get on board and actually take out citizenship. Now in theory that, in theory that sounds, I guess, may be reasonably sensible, but it also, I think, doesn't really reflect what people do in, you know, today's world, in, you know, in the modern age. Lots of people have dual citizenships. Lots of people in this country come from countries where you can't actually get rid of your citizenship. And I'm thinking of China for example, and I believe perhaps India as well, where you can't actually say, I'm no longer a citizen of India or a citizen of China and I am taking up just Australian citizenship. It's not that simple. You know, people want to sort of retain the option of being able to go back to the country of their birth, maybe they have parents there, things like that. So essentially, you know, prospectively what would happen is that you'd be creating a really a two tiered system for people regardless of whether they, you know, pay their taxes, you know, pay off their hecs, go to university here, have kids here, what have you. If you're a permanent resident, prospectively, this is grandfathered. You would miss out in the future.
- [06:18]
A
Okay, I've definitely got questions about that, but first I've got a brass tax question for you which is, are our current immigration levels sustainable or are they unsustainable? Like, what's the argument for the numbers dropping significantly? Because we know that Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke just said on Friday that, yes, the migration numbers had been too high in recent years and they peaked under immigration settings of the previous government. And of course we know the numbers really did grow, you know, a lot, of course, with COVID and the border closures and stuff, but that labor had been taking action to bring those numbers down to sustainable levels. So are they at sustainable levels or is there really an argument here that yes, the numbers of immigrants do need to drop?
- [06:58]
B
Look, I'm not a demographer, Sam. I wouldn't venture a guess what the magic number is for sustainable immigration. As we touch on a moment, you know, post Covid, the borders opening, there was pent up demand. We touched, you know, close to half a million people sort of flooding into the country if you like, you know, people who are coming back to university degrees or be reunited with loved ones or, you know, you know, various reasons. It's been on, you know, the immigration levels, it's been on a very much a downwards trajectory since then. I think it was projected to be 290,000 in the current financial year. We've gone a little bit past that. It's about, it's going to be about 310, 320, so not a massive amount past. And the trajectory according to the budget papers is still heading down. I think it's around about 260,000 people next year and then it's projected to be I think maybe 240,000 the year after. The long term average has been a touch over 200,000 and that's going back at least a couple of decades. So you might venture a guess that's a sustainable level. But then there's actually more wrinkles and more complications to this than just that. I mean, let's say for example, with the federal government's target of building 1.2 million homes over five years, a good example given, you know, what Angus Taylor's promised, how do we build those homes? Do we have enough workers to build those homes? Do we have the expertise to build those homes? I mean, yes, of course we do on a house by house basis. But no, we don't have enough workers. So there's something like 80,000 qualified builders and carpenters and what have you in this country. We need way more than that. Senate inquiry is looking at this at the moment. We need way more than that to get to that 1.2 million target. So on the one hand, yes, I get the sort of the proposal to say, well, let's slow it down, let's bring people in when we get houses built. But we also need people coming in to build those houses. And that's the catch 22 that we're in at the moment. After the break, just about everyone knows someone who's got a parent or a grandparent born overseas. And if you're saying to that cohort, oh, you don't get as many rights, even if you're paying taxes, you're going to miss out because you're not a citizen. You risk alienating entire families and entire communities.
- [09:35]
A
Okay. And I wanted to ask you a follow up question about what you mentioned beforehand, which is that it would be this two tier system essentially, right? So non residents just not getting all access to all kinds of welfare programs. Because I wanted to ask you whether this coalition policy proposal, is it just a dog whistle to one nation voters or does it have merit? Because we know that some of the language that Angus Taylor has used sort of, I guess echoes the one nation message. You know, he said that, you know, this, this will be an immigration policy that puts Australians first, which I think has shades of that sort of one nation flavor, right? Like who's Australian and who isn't. And it's. So, yeah. Is this just a dog whistle to one nation voters to bring them back into the liberal fold?
- [10:15]
B
I. Look, I think it's too simplistic to say this is just a dog whistle. I think it's absolutely fair to have a debate, it's legitimate to have a debate about what, what the right number is, what sort of skills we need coming in here. You know, do we need builders or do we need lawyers or do we need hairdressers or, you know, whatever it might be, clearly we need more builders. So I get that that's, you know, that the system sort of perhaps needs some adjusting in terms of what skills and what classes of visa and what types of people or types of people with certain sets of skills get their visa. But the way, and this goes to your point, Sam, the way this is being presented by Angus Taylor is very much about reaching out to that one nation base. Now he's not sort of, you know, he's not gone anywhere near as far as one nation wants to go. He's pushing into that space a little bit, he's moving towards them a little bit. But it's very much in terms of the, I won't say inflammatory, but the rhetoric is heightened, I guess you'd say.
- [11:17]
A
It's loaded, isn't it?
- [11:18]
B
And it's very deliberate. Yeah, loaded. And I think that's very deliberate. Coalition face an existential crisis on their right. In the Most recent resolve, One Nation is out polling the coalition. 24 primary vote 24% versus 23%. Like that's, that's a clear and present danger to the future of the Liberal Party. So yes, he's trying to get those voters attention and he's trying to bring them back.
- [11:45]
A
Okay, so trying to recover from what many see as an existential position for the Liberal Party and the coalition. But is this particular policy proposal of Angus Taylor's political su. Suicide? Because we know that about 4.5 to 5 million people in Australia are non citizens. That's 1 in 6 residents. Right? And we had pollster Cos Samaras write just over the weekend that that means that there's huge amount of voters in Australia who won't be affected by this policy. They're citizens, but they'll be living with parents or grandparents who are not citizens and they might be repelled by this policy that essentially looks at their non citizen parents and grandparents as second class citizens. Like is this political suicide it does
- [12:23]
B
carry significant risks for Angus Taylor. I mean, you know, I think of my grandmother, right? She didn't, you know, become a naturalised Australian until way, like, decades after she moved over from Italy. You know, I think of, you know, our neighbours across the road whose parents are regularly back and forth visiting from India and have lived here for periods of time, lived over there for periods of time. Everyone knows someone who's got a parent, or just about everyone knows someone who's got a parent or a grandparent born overseas. And if you're saying to that cohort, and it is a very big cohort, as we just touched on, you don't get as many rights, even if you're paying taxes, even if you're doing this, even if you've been here on and off for 30 years or 20 years, whatever it might be, you're going to miss out because you're not a citizen. That's, you know, that does, as Cos wrote, place at risk. It's significant risk. The votes of the kids who still live here and who are citizens and who can vote, or the parents or the, you know, whichever sort of section or cohort or whatever of. Of that particular family. You risk alienating entire families and entire communities. And you talk about the sort of immigrant levels in this country. I'd love to come back. I have to come back to Menzies, the Victorian seat, you know, literally named after the founder of the Liberal Party, fell to labor for the first time last election. Keith Wallahan, a liberal moderate who, you know, the guy who lost his seat, wrote a great essay a few months ago about some of the challenges facing the party and a point that he made in that piece which just leapt out of me, 70% of residents of Menzies are either born overseas or have a parent born overseas. Like, it's higher than the average, you know, the Australian sort of national average. And most of them are from mainland China or, you know, their mum or dad might be from mainland China or their grandma. How the heck are they going to win back an. It's not even inner city, you know, middle ring suburban seat like that. When they're alienating, or potentially alienating, I should say, so many of the people who live in that seat.
- [14:24]
A
Yeah. And I do wonder how immigrant communities have responded. I know that our colleague, Nick Newling, he interviewed a man named Namar Singh, he's the founder of a charity called Turbans for Turbans, who said it was, quote, shameful that Taylor was targeting people who are on valid visas who are paying taxes but are, you know, not, quote, being treated as human beings? And so I've got a bit of an ethical question for you, James Mussola, which is, is it ethical to take social welfare benefits away from residents who pay taxes but aren't citizens? I mean, we know that Deputy Liberal Leader Jane Hume has said that the policy of barring non citizens from social welfare programs would not apply to Medicare. But of course, there's all kinds of other welfare programs. I think you said there's 17, and they include the NDIS and the old Aged Care, pension and all kinds of benefits. And is that unethical?
- [15:13]
B
I think it is. I mean, just for argument's sake, let's say I, I, I sort of moved over here from India to study, you know, a master's in engineering when I was 23 years old. I did my two or three year masters, I stayed on, I got a job. I'd been here 10 years, working, paying my taxes. You know, I met a nice lady, we have a kid, the kids, you know, got autism, you know, something like that. In fact, that's probably a bad example because of the changes being made to the ndis, but you know what I mean?
- [15:45]
A
I do.
- [15:46]
B
And then I'm suddenly told that, well, you know, your son or daughter can't access that program because you're a permanent resident. They're not a citizen yet. You know, you haven't gone through that process, like it just. Yeah, I think it's deeply problematic, Sam. Yeah. Yep. And you know, potentially even open up to a court challenge.
- [16:03]
A
Yeah, I was wondering that as well. But finally, should we even be taking this proposal from Angus Taylor serious? Because it's gotta be said, like the coalition's chances of forming government anytime soon seem ridiculously slim. Right?
- [16:17]
B
Yeah, I think that's probably right, but not definitely right, Sam. I mean, I think we do have to take it seriously because the Liberal Party or the coalition is still the prospective or, you know, most likely alternative government of this country. So in that sense, of course you have to take it seriously. So the second point I'd make, Sam, is that in terms of the coalition, you know, they don't look like they're anywhere near being able to form government. Anthony Albanese has 94 seats. All of that. That's all true. I think we also live in an age where big swings against incumbent governments are happening more and more regularly. I think that Anthony Albanese, wonderful as he is, you know, and Amazing as his 94 seats were, I actually don't think that's a deep majority in the sense that part of what propelled him to such a big win was people being turned off by Peter Dutton rather than people being compelled to vote for Anthony Albanese because he had such an amazing policy program. And I'm, you know, not seeking to make a partisan, you know, whack at him or at anyone really. But I think, yeah, his majority is not as deep as it necessarily looks. And the potential, particularly now with the rise of Hanson for a big swing or even a small swing taking a big chunk of seats away from him, is there. So, yeah, I think you absolutely have to take this seriously.
- [17:40]
A
Well, it's a very interesting space. So thank you so much, James, for coming back on.
- [17:45]
B
Always a pleasure, Sam. Thank you.
- [17:53]
A
In other news today, dozens of university residential colleges have recorded a sharp drop in sexual harassment, bullying and discrimination after overhauling the way students report bad behavior. A top cop in New South Wales has said the drug dog days at musical festivals are over as police shift their focus to targeting train stations, parks and more secluded locations where they suspect people are selling drugs to festival goers. And most of Australia's leading men's tennis players, including Alex Dimanore, have united to endorse Sam Groff for a senior leadership position at Tennis Australia as the search for Craig Tyle's successor nears its end. You can read more@the age.comau or smh.com Today's episode was produced by Josh Towers. Our executive producer is Tammy Mills, and our podcasts are overseen by Lisa Muxworthy and Tom McKendrick. If you like our show, follow the Morning Edition and leave a review for us on Apple or Spotify. Thanks for listening.