Critics like Senator Hume and Minister Watt are either misinformed or playing politics with One Nation’s seven-page immigration policy. To be clear: our policy keeps intake numbers completely unchanged for backpackers, PALM workers and the tourism sector.

Citing from the Treasury’s FIONA model, young, working-age migrants aged 25–35 contribute positively to the economy while older migrants, family reunion programs and non-working arrivals create a net financial cost.

Our policy aims to prioritise productive workers while screening out non-producers.

Canada is proof that immigration cuts ease rental pressures and benefits local workers. We will still permits genuinely skilled workers in critical areas like construction, nursing, aged care and rural industries.

Businesses should stop relying on imported labour rather than training the 690,000 unemployed and 1.65 million underemployed Australians. Our policy will end the “cheap-labour gravy train” and boost domestic living standards.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Liberal Senator Hume described One Nation’s immigration policy as ‘a headline number and a few slogans’. I have the policy here. It’s seven pages of details and facts. It took months of research to source the numbers and formulate the measures, which are comprehensive, detailed, consistent and will fix so many of the problems Australia is facing in housing, household wealth, service delivery, social cohesion and the current per capita recession in which Australians are suffering. It’s clear that people criticising the policy have never read it or are lying out of political self-interest. For clarity, there’s no change in backpackers, no change in PALM workers, no change in tourism numbers. All three can increase if the market can sustain more. Labor Minister Watt made this criticism: ‘One Nation policy will destroy the economy and drive the economy into recession.’ The minister is not alone in this deceit. Some Liberal-aligned business leaders and Labor-aligned media have repeated this unfounded fabrication, contrary to the facts.  

The Treasury’s Fiscal Impact of New Australians model, FIONA, looks at the lifetime contribution of a new immigrant—the cost and the benefit. A young migrant in the sweet spot of 25 to 35 years of age—someone who assimilates, works his or her whole life and stays out of trouble—will add $198,000 to the economy in their lifetime, increasing GDP and wealth for all, which is why we are not reducing that cohort; we are increasing it. This is our immigration target demographic.  

FIONA shows each person arriving under the family program, though, costs the Australian economy $126,000 across their lifetime. FIONA shows a migrant arriving after the age of 50 will never pay back the taxpayers either. In addition, their lifetime value is negative. The current mix of this government’s new arrivals is heavily weighted towards older migrants, family reunions and nonworkers, and there are hundreds of thousands of fake students working in the gig economy, cheating on their tax and sending home as much money as possible. Children of new arrivals or family reunions have a huge lifetime economic cost. The younger the child, the more likely it is that they will have a negative lifetime economic impact. This is why FIONA only puts the average lifetime contribution of all migrants that this government is letting in at $41,000. The more committed, young, educated or skilled workers we let in, the more nonproducers we can screen out. It only takes 20 per cent of all arrivals to be our target young demographic for the total value of arrivals to hit the $41,000 figure. So what do other arrivals contribute? They don’t. They add costs to Australians. Do the maths.  

Prime Minister Carney grew Canada’s economy with the same approach One Nation is proposing. He grew it. Canada’s largest banks report that Canadian immigration cuts were easing rental pressures and supporting employment. In Canadian provinces where the immigration cuts were most significant, rents are falling fastest. The banks concluded the immigration slowdown has been great news for Canada’s battlers.  

Speaking last night on—of course—the ABC, George Megalogenis said our cut would cause the worst depression since the 1890s. Talk about seeing what you want to see! What utter nonsense—a lie. The data I have just presented shows the reverse will be true. Canada proved the reverse will be true.  

As for a supposed labour shortage, One Nation is not changing backpacker numbers. We’re offering skilled visas to genuinely skilled workers in areas we need them, including construction; the care economy, such as nursing and aged care; and rural industry. Let’s be clear; only one per cent of skilled arrivals last year under this government were construction workers, half a per cent were aged-care workers and one per cent were nurses. Our numbers leave plenty of room for more skilled and educated workers where we need them.  

Our policy looks after those who are already here. Right now, there are 690,000 Australians out of work—690,000. There are another 1.65 million Australians looking for extra work. Business lobbies should start there—with Australians who want a job. It’s industry’s fault that workforce planning was sacrificed on the altar of high profits and lazy management. The workers are here in Australia. It’s time for industry to get back in the business of training the new generation of apprentices and staff, instead of lazily importing them. 

Under One Nation, the cheap-labour gravy train will be over, and Australians can begin to restore Australian productivity and living standards. Together we Australians can restore Australia.  

A late government amendment (IC116) was dropped on our office proposing broad new immunities from producing documents or information for key NDIS figures, including the CEO, board members, commissioners, actuaries, and agency officers.

When I first reviewed the amendment, it looked like a sweeping shield that could let wrongdoers off the hook, shut down accountability, block Senate estimates from getting answers, and potentially cover up fraud. I asked the Minister on whether fraud was even on their radar and questioned if it was part of a deal with the LNP.

Minister McAllister assured me that the core purpose of the amendment is actually to stop dodgy providers from exploiting existing privacy clauses to dodge fraud investigations, workplace health and safety checks, and anti-corruption oversight (such as the NACC and ACIC).

The Minister clarified that these strict immunities only apply to protecting sensitive, personal information belonging to NDIS participants. She maintained that standard redaction isn’t always enough to safely handle participant privacy, though agency staff remain fully accountable to bodies like the NACC.

While I completely agree that participants’ personal details must remain private and out of the public eye, I’m concerned this would block senators from accessing documents with personal details redacted. The Minister said that officers would have to evaluate requests on a case-by-case basis depending on the exact nature of the protected information involved.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, government amendment IC116 revised has just been received by our office—it’s been presented just this evening—wanting to insert into the bill part 7, titled ‘Immunity from producing documents or information’: 

(1) A person is not required to produce a document, or disclose any information, matter or thing, to a court, tribunal, authority 

or other person or entity having the power to make such a requirement, if: 

(a) the person is, or has been, a person mentioned in subsection (2)—which I’ll get to in a minute; it’s all encompassing— 

(b) the document, information, matter or thing has come to the knowledge, or into the possession, or to the notice, of the person because of: 

(i) the performance or exercise of the person’s duties, functions … 

The following positions are listed: 

(a) the CEO; 

(b) a Board member; 

(c) the Commissioner; 

(d) a member of the Advisory Council; 

(e) the scheme actuary; 

(f) the reviewing actuary; 

(g) an Agency officer; 

(h) a Commission officer; 

(i) a consultant engaged under section 171 or 181V; 

(j) a person performing services: 

(i) for the Agency under a contract with the Agency; or 

(ii) for the Commission under a contract with the Commission. 

If someone does something wrong while in one of these positions, or having been in one of these positions, apparently they do not have to disclose documents or information. How can that lead to accountability? I thought this was all about care. We’re concerned about the care given to disabled people, we’re concerned about the taxpayer on the hook and we’re concerned about Public Service accountability. The way we read it, it means Senate estimates cannot seek information or documents from these people. The first question is: isn’t fraud on your radar? The second question is: was this part of your deal with the LNP? 

Senator McALLISTER (Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme): Senator Roberts, it might assist you if I talk through the background for this amendment that the government has brought forward. At the moment, the legislation that governs the NDIS provides very broad immunities, including for the categories of persons that you just alluded to in your question, and that’s for a very good reason. It’s because the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission and the NDIA hold deeply personal information about people with disability. To ensure that that information, which is personal in nature, is protected and that disabled people who participate in the scheme can be confident that their information is protected, there are very strict privacy provisions about what can be shared about an individual person. On occasion, you may have heard me or another minister being asked about a particular person or a particular case and we declined to answer because, appropriately, a person’s individual circumstances held by a government agency may not be disclosed except under very limited circumstances. However, the challenge that we’ve been observing is that some providers have been arguing that that immunity extends to them. So when a fraud investigation or some other form of investigation is underway, providers have argued that they are not required or compelled to produce those documents because of this immunity. This amendment essentially seeks to ensure that regulators can compel providers to provide documentation for the purpose of performing their regulatory functions. It would also enable agencies such as the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission or the National Anti-Corruption Commission to investigate serious and organised crime operating in the NDIS. It will prevent NDIS providers from claiming immunity from the production of documents under 67G of the act. So NDIS providers and their employees would not be able to use this provision of the act to refuse to provide information to a court, a tribunal or other law enforcement agency with the power to seek this information. For example, to date, providers have attempted to rely on this immunity to refuse to provide information during workplace health and safety investigations. Immunity would henceforth only apply to officers of the NDIA and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. There would be exceptions where disclosure was necessary for the purposes of the NDIS Act, the Royal Commissions Act, the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act and the Australian Crime Commission Act. 

Senator ROBERTS: Couldn’t it simply, in the interests of openness, require redaction of personal details? 

Senator McALLISTER: The amendment before us seeks to make sure that the privacy provisions are being used as intended, and, in doing so, it seeks to make it clear that they are not intended to be relied upon by providers who have in recent times sought to use these immunities to prevent them from being accountable for some of their obligations. As I indicated in my earlier answer to you, the immunities that apply to officers of the NDIA and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission are subject to exceptions where disclosure is necessary, and I listed those. There are some purposes under the NDIS Act that enable or compel disclosure. The Royal Commissions Act is relevant; the National Anti- Corruption Commission Act is relevant, and the Australian Crime Commission Act is relevant. 

Senator ROBERTS: Couldn’t normal redaction processes cover the personal confidential details? 

Senator McALLISTER: I think the advice we have is no and that the protections that are in place that protect the personal details of disabled people who are participants in this scheme are an important feature of the operations of the scheme. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not alluding to any people in their current position, but, in the future, if a CEO, board member, commissioner, member of the advisory council or scheme actuary were to do anything wrong, they wouldn’t have to disclose that information; is that correct? 

Senator McALLISTER: The advice that I have is that, if an employee of the NDIA or of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission does something wrong, they are accountable in all of the ordinary ways, including, of course, to the National Anti- Corruption Commission. These protections apply only to the disclosure of personal information about participants. 

Senator ROBERTS: Let me check my understanding: it’s only to personal details, personal disclosure? 

Senator McALLISTER: The act defines protected information, Senator, and I’m paraphrasing here, but, in general and non-legal terms, protected information generally refers to personal information about participants. 

Senator ROBERTS: As a senator, I ask questions in Senate estimates. I’m not interested in personal details. I wouldn’t like to see that come out in public, so I agree with that, but does this impact, in any way, a senator’s right to gain access to information or documents in Senate estimates or orders for production of documents? 

Senator McALLISTER: Not unless it contains that protected information that we were speaking about earlier. Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: What if I asked for with that with the personal details redacted? I’m not interested in personal details. 

Senator McALLISTER: I think it would depend on the circumstances, Senator. The prohibition is on the release of protected information, and, if you made a request of that kind, the officer at Senate estimates would have to consider their legal obligations and make a decision which was specific to the document that you were requesting. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister.