I thank the Migration Institute of Australia for the invitation to present at your national conference.
Our immigration policy must be a policy which has a social licence – a policy which has the support of the Australian people.
The Mapping Cohesion Report jointly published by the Scanlon Foundation, the Australian Multicultural Foundation and ANU found that 49% of Australians believe the current rate of immigration is too high.
The percentage of overseas-born Australians from non-English speaking backgrounds who believe immigration is too high has increased from 16 per cent to 39 per cent in just two years.
Hence, the concern with respect to immigration numbers is across the whole of Australian society.
The report also indicates that the belief that immigration numbers are too high is most strongly related to economic and housing issues, rather than attitudes to multiculturalism.
This is a key point.
Nothing better illustrates this than the following survey result.
75% of the Australians who believe immigration numbers are too high also believe that multiculturalism has been good for Australia. That is, the overwhelming number of Australians concerned with the rate of migration are still positive about multiculturalism.
That is very heartening.
But a result which underlines the importance of those of us engaging in this debate to do so in a considered and measured way.
Our immigration policy must be in our national interest. But, more than that, the debate in relation to immigration policy must be conducted in a way which is also in our national interest.
In 1968 in Great Britain, Enoch Powell, the then Shadow Secretary of State for Defence for the Conservative Party, gave an inflammatory speech. It became known as the ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech.
It was in relation to immigration in the context of a debate on the Race Relations Bill. Following the speech, Enoch Powell was dumped from Shadow Cabinet.
Just recently, British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, had occasion to apologise for a remark he made which appeared to mirror, albeit inadvertently, the language of Enoch Powell.
I want to quote to you from a speech given on 23 April 1968, by the then Conservative Shadow Home Affairs Minister, Quintin Hogg, partly in response to Powell’s speech.
It would be a disaster if either of the great organised bodies of public opinion upon which the country depends for its successive Governments sought to exploit or to gain political advantage from the deep feelings which are held about this topic. I think that I can honestly say that I have not done so in the past. I promise sincerely that I shall try not to now or in the future.
As Shadow Immigration Minister, I feel the resonance of those words today.
The debate with respect to Australia’s immigration policy must be had. It is an important debate. But the debate must be based on evidence and facts. It must be measured and considered.
It must not seek to inflame emotion, but rather to engage in good faith with respect to the issues that need to be debated in our national interest – in our common interest.
So let me make some observations in relation to policy settings.
For twenty years, Australia’s Permanent Migration Intake (excluding the humanitarian stream) has been in a range between 160,000 to 195,000. However, approximately 60% of those visas are granted to applicants already in Australia. That is a highly relevant point to make in the context of the current housing supply crisis.
In addition, over the last twenty years, Australia has had a humanitarian intake between 10,000 to 25,000 a year. That has been an important bipartisan policy.
In relation to Net Overseas Migration, previous research undertaken indicates that NOM between 160,000 to 220,000 per annum will optimise the growth rate of GDP per capita through its impact on population ageing. However, it would be timely to update that research as it was undertaken about 15 years ago.
The Centre for Population within Treasury assumes a long-term average NOM of 235,000 based in part on the 14-year pre-COVID pandemic average.
In the ten years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the average NOM was approximately 216,000.
However, Net Overseas Migration for the year ended 31 March 2025 was 315,900.
That is approximately 100,000 (or 46.29%) above the ten-year average prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
It is 95,000 (or 43.18%) higher than the upper end of the range to optimise the growth rate of GDP per capita through its impact on population ageing.
It is 91,000 (or 40.4%) higher than Treasury’s NOM forecasts in the last budget for the three years commencing 1 July 2026.
It is 80,000 (or 34.04%) higher than the long-term average assumption of 235,000 used by the Centre for Population.
So whichever way you look at it, NOM is still materially higher than a range of measures of long-term sustainable levels.
But this cannot be considered in isolation. We also have the housing supply issue. And it is an issue.
The latest State of the Housing System Report makes for sobering reading
In 2024, the supply of new housing was near its lowest level in a decade – 177,000 dwellings. That was significantly less than the underlying demand of 223,000 dwellings for the same period.
The vacancy rate for rentals is expected to rise but to remain below 2.5% over the next four years, implying rental conditions will remain difficult for tenants.
The State of the Housing System Report of 2025 makes it clear – that different population growth scenarios have an impact in relation to whether new supply will meet new demand. How could it be otherwise?
So, in setting policy parameters for immigration, in seeking to return net overseas migration to a sustainable level, those housing supply constraints must be considered.
But, at the same time, we have critical skill shortages, including in regional Australia.
The construction industry is crying out for more skilled workers to help build the houses that will help address the shortage.
The labour requirements of our agriculture industry and aged care sector must also be considered.
Student visas have been an area of great public debate. There has been an issue around visa hopping which has required a tightening of visa settings. Former students have been staying in Australia for longer with many working in jobs below their education level. That is not sustainable.
I also note that has been an extraordinary 1,500% increase in applications to the ART to review student visa rejections in just two years. As of 30 June 2025, the ART had a staggering 38,067 applications on hand.
In relation to applications for merits review of protection visa applications, the ART is trying to manage a year-on-year increase of 50%.
At budget estimates, the Registrar of the ART described it as a ‘avalanche of lodgements’. At the same time, the Registrar referred to short staffing. We heard that the ART is urgently seeking to recruit an additional 100 members to address the issue. This is of course materially impacting the time to process matters.
We now have over 100,000 people in Australia who have failed in onshore protection visa claims and are currently in some part of the process seeking merits or judicial review or status resolution. It is growing each month. It is 31.4% higher than just two years ago when the Government announced its reforms to address the issue.
As at 30 June 2025, there were 369,142 people on bridging visas. An increase of an extraordinary 70,000 in just one year.
How does all this impact the departure side of the NOM equation?
How is the Government going to achieve its forecast of 225,000 NOM in the year commencing 1 July 2026?
I do not know. There is no detailed explanation.
We must also consider other areas of immigration.
The movement of New Zealanders under Trans-Tasman arrangements. If the labour market is soft in New Zealand, then there is greater movement to Australia.
We have seen that in the results just released by the Department in its latest report. Year on year there has been an increase of 18,466. The figure is now 736,231. That constitutes 26.43% of temporary visa holders as at 30 June 2025.
Over the last year, the number of working holiday visa holders has increased by 37,755, an increase of 21.80%. There are now 210,971 working holiday visa holders in Australia as at 30 June 2025, up from 173,216 just a year ago. Those visa holders are crucial for our agriculture and tourism industries.
In relation to partner visas, for the year ended 30 June 2025, there were 68,105 applications for partner visas lodged. There are now 96,839 temporary/provisional partner visa applications on hand as at 30 June 2025, up from approximately 75,000 the year before.
As you know, the Migration Act prevents the capping of partner and child visa categories. How will this increase in applications, and a growing Australian population, impact NOM?
We then have new categories of visas added: the MATES visa, the Pacific Engagement Visa. We need to consider the impact of the PALM scheme. These are not just visa categories, they have foreign relations dimension.
The point I am making is that I recognise that you cannot get away from doing the hard work in developing an immigration policy. It is multifaceted. It is complicated. It requires analysis and detail.
When making proposals, it is simply not good enough to provide a number without explaining how you derived that number. You need to be clear on proposed policy settings and linking them to how you are going to achieve outcomes. You need to be able to answer detailed questions about numbers for different visa categories. If you do not do that, you lose credibility.
I would like to make three final observations.
First, there must be greater transparency and more information with respect to how the Government determines its permanent migration programme.
When the Minister for Immigration announced the Permanent Migration Program for 2025-26, more than two months after the start of the program year, he made an announcement of three sentences. Less than one hundred words. It is not good enough.
It is especially not good enough in the context of Australia going through one of the most tumultuous periods of discussion of immigration policy in recent times. Transparency is important. Providing an explanation to the Australian people is vital. Otherwise, the vacuum is left to be filled by the extreme fringe elements.
Second, I am deeply concerned that the Government is moving away from its commitment to undertake a multi-year planning approach to the Permanent Migration Programme. This is an important part of medium-term planning.
There was detailed discussion of implementing that multi-year planning approach from the 2025-26 year with the planning level set for this year and a nominal planning level set for years two, three and four. But it has just disappeared from the radar.
The phrase ‘multi-year planning’ no longer appears in the Department of Home Affairs Corporation Plan for the current year.
The phrase does not appear in the October 2025 report on Administration of the Immigration and Citizenship Programme.
The phrase does not appear in the last budget.
What happened? What is proposed?
I raised it with the Department in Senate Estimates this week. There was no clear explanation. But it is something the Minister needs to explain. It should not be left to the Department.
I come back to that three-sentence statement by the Minister announcing the Permanent Migration Programme for the 2025-26 year. Where was the explanation for abandoning the multi-year planning approach which was committed to?
As an aside, I should add that I also raised in Estimates the fact that visa processing times for the Skills in Demand visa are not meeting the target median processing times committed to in the Migration Strategy. It was concerns raised by the Institute that brought that to my attention. Hopefully, there is a material improvement.
Lastly, where is the long-term planning? I referred earlier to the fact that the Centre for Population is using a long term assumed NOM of 235,000 a year. There is no visa breakdown.
The same long term assumption is being used all the way out to 2065 – with the same assumption of 595,000 arrivals and 360,000 departures, going on ad infinitum. How is that realistic? Can’t we do better than that? We must do better than that.
Why? Because the long-term planning framework must dovetail with other planning processes, including those undertaken by the States and Local Government in relation to planning for infrastructure, government services and housing construction. That was made clear in the Parkinson Review into the Immigration Strategy in 2023.
Long-term planning will provide confidence to the Australian people. It is vital to building social licence – to obtaining the support of the Australian people – for our immigration programme.
Unfortunately, nearly two years after the release of the Migration Strategy, there is little to see in way of detailed progress. Again, it is not good enough.
So, where is the Liberal Party up to in relation to our policy formulation? A policy development process has been established by our leader, Sussan Ley. It provides an opportunity for all colleagues to have their input.
Since my appointment, I have been engaging with a range of stakeholders and experts around the country. Making sure that I have access to the best data and the most informed views.
We will take the time to get our immigration policy right.
We will listen to the Australian community.
The policy development process will be iterative and continuous.
It will evolve throughout the term in response to internal and external feedback, emerging issues and ongoing engagement.
The comments I have provided you today give you an insight in relation to the matters that I am considering as Shadow Immigration Minister.
In the meantime, we will continue to hold the government to account. That is our duty as an Opposition. We will continue to ask the questions that must be asked.
In closing, I note that yesterday you had a session on celebrating the 50th anniversary of settlement of our Vietnamese Australian community. As Shadow Immigration Minister, I am proud that settlement occurred under a Coalition government led by Malcolm Fraser.
Every day, I see first-hand the contribution of our Vietnamese Australian community:
- the hard work.
- the value placed on education.
- always being there to help their fellow Australians in need; and
- sharing cultural festivals with the wider community.
All proud Australians. So thankful to have found freedom and a new life in Australia.
It is a beautiful chapter in the history of Australia.
When we discuss immigration, we should always remember that there are countless stories just like it.
We are a better country for each and every one of those stories.
