This is controversial, but it needs to be said.
The response from Labor, particularly @Tony_Burke and @jeromelaxale to @AngusTaylorMP’s immigration address was nothing short of disgraceful.
What should have been a serious, necessary debate was once again reduced to a predictable barrage of accusations, blatantly misrepresenting his position and defaulting to claims of racism and lies. That shuts down discussion instead of engaging with the substance. We must not let that happen.
Because the substance matters.
It is a fact, backed by Treasury analysis, that some cohorts within the migration program have a negative fiscal impact over their lifetime. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make it untrue; it just makes it harder to have an honest conversation about how the system should operate.
According to The Lifetime Fiscal Impact of the Australian Permanent Migration Program (Treasury Paper No. 2, December 2021), the estimated lifetime fiscal impact includes:
- Parent visa holders: approximately –$394,000
- Humanitarian migrants: approximately –$400,000 per person
These figures are not opinion, they come from Treasury modelling. And the report itself makes clear that fiscal outcomes are a relevant consideration when assessing migration policy.
At the same time, the report also acknowledges that fiscal impact is only one part of a much broader picture. Migration brings social, economic, and cultural benefits as well as costs. But that’s exactly the point: you can’t selectively cite the positives while refusing to acknowledge the negatives.
We are living with the broader consequences right now.
Housing is under strain. Infrastructure is struggling to keep pace. Essential services are stretched. Record levels of migration are being used to prop up headline economic figures, while the practical impacts are borne by everyday Australians.
And beyond economics, there are social expectations that cannot be ignored. A functioning migration program relies on a shared commitment to Australia’s laws, values, and way of life. It is not unreasonable to expect that those who come here respect that, nor is it unreasonable to say that those who actively undermine it, or seek to reshape it in ways that conflict with those fundamentals, should not expect indefinite acceptance.
We are even seeing this tension play out within our own parliament, where some elected representatives, entrusted to serve Australia’s interests, are advocating more strongly for overseas causes or conflicts than for the cohesion and stability of the country they were elected to represent. That erodes public confidence and fuels the very concerns many are trying to dismiss.
For a long time, I’ve held the view that family reunion visas should be limited to spouses and dependent children, not extended family such as parents. That’s a policy position open to debate, but it should be debated on facts, not dismissed with insults.
And that’s the real issue here.
Instead of engaging honestly with difficult questions, about sustainability, fairness, and national interest, we get slogans, deflection, and character attacks.
Australia deserves better than that.
