Posts

Australia’s Visa System is Snapping Under the Weight

,

During this estimates session with the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART), I asked questions regarding the scale of visa appeals they are reviewing – and it’s worse than expected.

Migration cases now make up 56% of the entire tribunal workload, with student visas alone accounting for 35%. The backlog is astonishing.

77,938 migration cases, 52,452 student visa cases, and 130,983 cases overall waiting for hearing. Protection visas add another 37,830, and even NDIS reviews are climbing.

The tribunal admitted its receiving around 90,000 applications a year, but is only funded to finalise 60,000, meaning the backlog grows by 30,000 every year.

When asked when this backlog is expected to be cleared, the answer was blunt and honest. On present numbers, they have no reasonable expectation.

The tribunal is drowning. A system meant for genuine review is being overloaded, under-funded and pushed beyond capacity, while taxpayers foot the bill for backlog that grows every single day.

Much of the fault lies with Australian universities, who aggressively market their degrees by promising students a fast track to permanent residency. This is often done through third-party brokers employed by the universities.

How long will the Government let the Tribunal drown before doing its job and and fixing this mess?

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I may have heard, on the tail end of what Senator Cash was saying, you going through some categories, so, if I do, forgive me for repeating them. Which is the largest category of applications for review currently before the tribunal? I think you said it’s student visas.  

Mr Hawkins: Yes. It’s in the migration case load. I hope you’re going to be wearing a maroon tie tomorrow!  

Senator ROBERTS: State of Origin.  

Senator CASH: I’ll even agree with that, as a Western Australian!  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m supporting coal today!  
 
Mr Hawkins: The highest case load is migration and the student visas within that.  
 
Senator ROBERTS: What would be the proportion of migration and then the proportion of that that’s students?  
 
Mr Hawkins: If I can say, migration is 56 per cent of our total case load. Within that, students represent 35 per cent of our total case load.  
 
Senator ROBERTS: How many of these applications are waiting for hearing?  
 
Mr Hawkins: Waiting for hearing, which is cases on hand—in migration we have 77,938 on hand. We have 52,452 student visas on hand. Across the total tribunal we have 130,983.  

Senator ROBERTS: Wow. No wonder you’re ‘aware’. What are the other major categories for review before the tribunal?  

Mr Hawkins: Our biggest case loads are working, skilled and investment visas. We have 13,983 on hand. For protection, we have 37,830, which is 29 per cent of our on-hand case load. For NDIS we have 7,136, which represents five per cent of our case load.  

Senator ROBERTS: Although that’s only five per cent, I heard you say that you’re worried about that because of the potential for growth.  

Mr Hawkins: Only from the sense of the media talk of what reforms are going to happen. As there’s nothing legislated, I can’t comment any further. As I said to Senator Cash, I’m alert but not alarmed.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could I get, on notice, a breakdown of all the categories and their numbers?  

Mr Hawkins: Of each list that we have?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Mr Hawkins: I can do that for you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. You’ve given me the total. This question could be difficult: When do you envisage this backlog will be reduced to an acceptable managed workload? What is a well-managed workload?  

Mr Hawkins: I guess a manageable case load is what we are funded to achieve. If it’s 100 per cent case load that we want to achieve, we need to have 100 per cent funding. As I explained to Senator Cash before, an issue we have with our funding is that we do actually have a cap in it, which is based on our ability to accommodate members to be able to do that work. At the moment our cap is 345 FTE of members, which is equivalent to about 60,000 finalisations, but we’re receiving about 90,000.  

Senator ROBERTS: There are 90,000 coming in, so you’re going backwards 30,000.  

Senator CASH: Every year?  

Mr Hawkins: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the reason for that?  

Mr Hawkins: Because we have a cap on our ability to accommodate members at the moment. As I also explained to Senator Cash, some of the initiatives that the Senate has been able to give us, such as being able to do student visas as a decision on the paper, will give us some flexibility as to how we accommodate our members. We might be able to have a number of members being able to do those types of cases from home because there’s no hearing involved. We have an initiative that every member in the tribunal will do 10 per cent of their case load as a student visa. So we’re trying to make inroads in that way as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: When do you expect the backlog to be cleared?  

Mr Hawkins: On present numbers, I don’t. I cannot have a reasonable expectation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, any comments to add?  

Senator Green: Is there a question, Senator?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. The tribunal are saying that they’ve got a workload that is increasing, not decreasing.  

Senator Green: I think, as Mr Hawkins alluded to in the comments he made, probably before you entered the room—apologies, Senator Roberts—it’s a demand driven funding model. We’re currently considering applications for additional members because we do acknowledge that more members definitely are required. Applications have been received for additional deputy president and senior member recruitment rounds, and the department can take you through the process for those rounds. As Mr Hawkins has alluded to, the Senate has also made some changes to the way that student visas are being considered so they can be considered on the papers, and there are regulations that are imminent to allow that to happen.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many members of the tribunal are there?  

Mr Hawkins: We will have 423 members as at 1 July, representing 347.5 FTE.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’ll be able to tell us more at supplementary estimates in November?  

Mr Hawkins: I certainly will.  

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s early days. Is there any way of getting a handle on the cost of each review to the taxpayer?  

Mr Hawkins: It’s a very complex formula because every matter is different. For example, a social security matter might take a day; a complex tax matter could take two weeks. So it’s very difficult to determine a cost per decision. We could calculate it on an average basis across each decision, and I could share with you a unit cost which shows that this tribunal today is more efficient than it’s ever been.  

Senator ROBERTS: Would you do that, please?  

Mr Hawkins: Let me just find the appropriate note. This is allowing for CPI adjustment and a weighted cost per unit. In 2025-26, year to date, our unit cost is $2,250.88.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s for a hearing?  

Mr Hawkins: Yes. To give you an indication, in 2020-21 it was $3,053, and in 2015-16 it was $2,769.  

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s coming down?  

Mr Hawkins: Yes. Where we have to be most efficient is, again, in that funding model, because we are receiving 91,000 applications a year, but we can’t just do the 60,000 that we’re funded for. At the front end we still have to deal with the 90,000 in some way. There are case management events that take place. There’s outreach with those 90,000 cases. Also, it’s very difficult to calculate unit costs because unit costs might be based on a finalisation, but in fact we’re touching matters, all matters, that come in our front door. Of those 130,000 matters that I mentioned before, there are touchpoints all through that process that we can’t account for until it’s a finalisation, so it’s a very complex calculation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I won’t ask the tribunal for an opinion but I’ll ask you: is there any work on alternative systems and processes? I’m not suggesting we should do that, but it sounds pretty overwhelming.  

Senator Green: I think we’ve taken you through some of the steps that we’re implementing to assist the tribunal with its work. Obviously, merits review is a really important part of responsible and accountable government. Applications that are made, as you know, are made when an applicant disagrees with a reviewable decision; for example, when the government denies someone a visa—or a student visa, in this example. We’re looking at all of the different ways that we can reduce the workload but also provide the tribunal with the resources that they need to be able to make these decisions.  

Mr Hawkins: You yourself, Senator, have been facilitating that through the Senate with the reforms that you’ve given us; for example, the decision on the papers. I mentioned before that the parliament has given the president powers to authorise registrars to handle matters more expeditiously. I think Senator Cash before was alluding to what more we can ask for, and perhaps there is space in the decision on the papers area for us to consider into the future, but at the moment we’re going to master the powers that we have.  

Senator ROBERTS: So we should know more by the November supplementary estimates. Is this process of using the Administrative Review Tribunal for appeals being exploited by those wishing to stay in Australia who have no right to be here?  

Mr Hawkins: That’s not a matter for me to answer.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister?  

Senator Green: There are a range of cases and reasons why people make applications. I’ll take that as a comment from you, Senator, rather than a question to me. 

/0 Comments/by

Dodgy Degrees, Broken Rules — Where Is Home Affairs?

,

During the last Senate Estimates, I questioned Home Affairs on their failure to properly vet the migrants they are letting into Australia.

Education is being used as a backdoor to permanent residency, with work requirements being rorted.

23,000 dodgy qualifications have been cancelled. These individuals abused the opportunity given to them — buying degrees and working instead of studying. $11 billion is sent overseas every year by foreign students. They breached their visa conditions and should be sent home—yet only 4 people were found guilty of immigration offences in 2023–24.

With 4.5 million visa holders, is enforcement even happening?

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll defer to that and respect the committee then. Let’s move on to the next question. I want to refer to reporting that the Australian Skills Quality Authority has cancelled 23,000 dodgy qualifications since late 2024. Many of these were in relation to international students, who are here on strict visa conditions. If they’ve been found to be participating in a ghost college or something similar to obtain a dodgy qualification to satisfy their visa, that’s clearly deceptive and a breach of their visa conditions, so they should be deported. Are we deporting international students in that 23,000 dodgy qualifications cohort?

Senator COX: They’re the same questions.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’ll move on. I’m going to refer to the federal defendants statistics out of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which say that only four people were found guilty of immigration offences in 2023-24. It seems extraordinarily low, given the 100,000 that we just discussed. How many people did the Department of Home Affairs refer for potential prosecution in 2023-24?

Mr Thomas: It would be across a range of different areas. For example, with the NZYQ affected cohort, we make a number of referrals to law enforcement for breaches of visa conditions. There are other referrals that happen through other parts of the business. We don’t have an aggregate number, but there is a regular flow of referrals through to law enforcement for consideration where we identify a noncitizen that’s in breach.

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t have a total number?

Mr Thomas: Not on me, and I think finding that would be quite difficult.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have the resources to refer everyone who may be committing an immigration offence for prosecution?

Mr Thomas: In terms of referring matters, yes. That’s a fairly straightforward process.

Senator ROBERTS: But you can’t tell me how many have been referred?

Mr Thomas: Not in totality across all of the department.

Senator ROBERTS: What I’m really asking is whether every single person the department becomes aware of who may have committed an immigration offence is referred for potential prosecution—yes or no?

Mr Thomas: Where we come across the situation where we think someone has committed a crime or breached the law, we will refer it to the appropriate authority.

Senator ROBERTS: But you don’t know how many deserve to be referred?

Mr Thomas: I don’t have those figures with me. I can take it on notice to try and find out.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. So you can’t guarantee that someone who’s in breach will be referred for potential prosecution?

Mr Thomas: You’re asking me a hypothetical question, but, in general, as I said, when we come across an instance where we think someone is in breach of a law, we will refer it to the appropriate jurisdiction.

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that only four guilty verdicts out of 2.5 million temporary visa holders in the country would imply it’s not possible.

Mr Thomas: I don’t have visibility of the statistics you’re referring to, but I’m aware of a range of migration outcomes.

Senator ROBERTS: In 2021 there were three million permanent visa holders. How many permanent visa holders are in the country right now? Is it four million?

Mr Willard: I have a figure. I’ll just flag that I’m not tracking that figure of three million for 2021. There are different types of permanent visas, but the figure I have at 30 June 2025 is 1.8 million. That includes 860,000 resident return visas. That’s a type of permanent visa.

Senator ROBERTS: What are the other classifications in that 1.8 million?

Mr Willard: There’s family, offshore humanitarian, onshore protection, other permanent, skilled and special eligibility, and resident return.

Senator ROBERTS: No other temporary visa holders?

Mr Willard: That’s the permanent visa figure that you mentioned.

Senator ROBERTS: How many temporary?

Mr Willard: The temporary figure’s 2.76 million.

Senator ROBERTS: So we add the 1.8 million to the 2.7 million to get the total noncitizens, temporary and permanent?

Mr Willard: The second figure, the 2.76 million figure, is temporary visa holders, and the first figure is permanent visa holders.

Senator ROBERTS: So visa holders in total are about 4.5 million?

Mr Willard: Approximately.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you, Chair.

/2 Comments/by

One Million Reasons You Can’t Afford Rent

,

A million foreign students and their families are in Australia—overcrowding schools, straining housing, and bleeding tens of billions of $$ out of the country.

Courses are being used as backdoor permanent residency pathways, with poor standards and little oversight.

One Nation will:

✅ Deport visa cheats
✅ End family visas for students
✅ Introduce 8-year wait times for benefits
✅ Free up homes for young Aussies

It’s time to fix the rort and put Australians first.

Transcript

 I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the Environment and Water (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today relating to international students.

I asked: has the government lost control of student visa holders? The Australian public have had enough of the government pretending immigration is fine. So many people are entering that the government has lost control. Foreign students are now allowed to bring in spouses, de facto partners and children under 18 who attend state schools and contribute to overcrowding. Spouses can work 24 hours a week, or, if the student is a postgraduate, they can work full time with no restrictions. Buying a first degree and coming in as a graduate student opens the door to a financial windfall and helps to explain how foreign visa holders were able to last year send $15 billion home to their families—money that leaves Australia forever, making our economy and our people poorer.

In the last two years, the early education graduate diploma at the Southern Cross University has had 6,000 enrolments. The ABC reports that courses like this are being used as permanent residency pathways, with courses dumbed down to keep the gravy train going. There are confirmed issues around graduates not speaking English and not understanding child protection policies, safe sleep or even hygiene. There are 1.1 million foreign students and their families currently in Australia.

One Nation will deport every visa holder who is breaching their visa, a figure close to 100,000 when the number of dishonest foreign students is included. We will introduce an eight-year waiting period for social security benefits, including Medicare, and we will cancel the visa for spouses and siblings to accompany students entirely. In the age of online learning, there is no need for a student with children to come to Australia in person. The Albanese government’s student visa rort is selling out young Australians, causing record homelessness. We will free up tens of thousands of houses for young Australians, who, thanks to the government, currently face the worst housing crisis and the worst housing market in Australian history. (Time expired)

/5 Comments/by

Visa Violations and Deportation of Criminal Offenders

,

During Question Time, I asked Senator Watt about the number of criminals on visas who have been deported for violating their visa conditions, particularly those convicted of forcing young women and children into arranged marriages without their consent—a crime under Australian law.  I also inquired why so few visa holders convicted of crimes in Australia have been deported. 

Transcript | Question Time

Senator ROBERTS: My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Senator Watt. Last week the Australian Federal Police publicised the case of a father who was convicted of attempting to force his 15-year-old and 17-year-old daughters into arranged marriages. For clarity: my question relates only to arranged marriages where either party is not given a choice. To respect the privacy of the children involved, my question goes to policy. Is human trafficking a 15-year-old girl into marriage sufficient grounds for deportation? If not, why not? 

Senator WATT: Thank you for the question. I don’t have details as to the specific case that you’re referring to, but certainly what I can say is that a breach of character grounds on any basis would be the basis for cancelling someone’s visa and deporting them from Australia. If it is the case that a crime has been committed in this case or that character grounds in general were found not to be satisfied, then of course the outcome of that would be that a visa would be cancelled. As I said, I don’t have enough details about the particular case involved, and you yourself said you didn’t want to go to the details of that case and wanted to talk more generally, but that is the general position when it comes to visas. If there’s any further information I can provide, I would be happy to do so. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the forced marriage of a child carries a nine-year prison penalty and 25 years if a child is sent oversee for the marriage. Australia Federal Police commander Kate Ferry described the offence as ‘human trafficking’, as does the Attorney-General’s website. Your answer downplayed a serious issue of women’s rights and contradicts your own website. Minister, with 91 cases of forced marriage reported to the AFP in the year to June, when will you start deporting the offenders, including the clergy involved? 

Senator WATT: Again, I don’t have the details of the 91 cases, and I’m not certain that they all involve people who are in Australia on visas. I want to fact-check that before accepting that that is the case.  

But, as I said, when it comes to visas that are granted to people to visit Australia, they come on conditions. Of course, any visa holder has responsibilities to the people of Australia while they’re present in Australia. Ordinarily what would occur is that if someone is convicted of an offence—and I don’t know whether any of these individuals have been convicted of offences. But if that were to occur then they would ordinarily serve their sentence in an Australian prison and, once they’ve served their sentence, that would be the time at which they would be deported, that their visa would be cancelled. Ordinarily, as I understand it, we don’t cancel people’s visas before we put them in jail, if they’ve committed an offence. They would serve out their sentence in a jail and then, on release, that would be the time that their visa would be cancelled. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, how many arrivals on permanent visas were deported for criminal activity in calendar 2023, or later if you have the data? For clarity, I don’t want visa overstays or deportations on technical grounds. My question goes specifically to a reluctance to deport for a serious criminal offence. 

Senator WATT: Again, I don’t have that level of detail with me, representing the Attorney-General, but if there’s information that I can provide to answer your question I’d be happy to provide that. What I can say is that, obviously, it’s a matter for police if there is an allegation of a crime. As I said, I’m not across the details of this particular report that you’re referring to. I’m not aware of whether the person has been charged or convicted, but it’s a matter for police— 

The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS: Standing order 72(3)(c) says that answers shall be directly relevant to each question. I’m not after the details on this question. I’ve got them. What we want to know is: how many arrivals and permanent visas were deported for criminal activity in calendar 2023, or later if you have the data? 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, you simply needed to have stood and said ‘relevance’. The minister was relevant. He indicated in the first part of his answer that if he could get more detail he would, and he is entitled to continue his answer. Minister Watt, please continue. 

Senator WATT: As I said, Senator Roberts, I’m happy to provide any further details in addition to anything that I do have here. What I am aware of is that significantly more visa cancellations have occurred under this government than ever occurred while Mr Dutton was the home affairs minister. That’s something I can tell you. But I’m happy to come back to you with additional details once they come to hand. 

Transcript

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and the Minister representing the Attorney-General (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today relating to grounds for visa cancellations. 

The Australian Federal Police prosecuted the case—concerning the failure to deport a recent arrival who attempted to force his 15-year-old and 17-year-old daughters into arranged marriages—resulting in conviction and imprisonment. Well done to the Australian Federal Police. The number of human-trafficking complaints to the AFP has increased, with the AFP receiving 382 reports including 91 forced marriage allegations across the 2023-24 financial year. A forced marriage involves the absence of free will. That’s why the Attorney-General’s website compares forced marriage to child labour and slavery. 

I thank the minister for informing the Senate that deporting criminals in cases of forced marriage is an option. The media, in part, reported this case using the term ‘arranged marriage’—it’s no such thing. Nonnas and yayas have been arranging marriages for centuries, and they’re still at it, so they must be getting something right. In this case, though, the father knew forced marriage is illegal in Australia, and his daughters refused to be trafficked. 

I would’ve thought that one benefit to this government bringing in 2.4 million new arrivals is the opportunity for us to keep the best and send the rest home. In the last week, we’ve seen thousands of new arrivals marching through the streets of our capital cities calling for death to other Australian citizens. Inciting violence is breaking the law. We’ve seen illegal terrorist symbols in full display. They have been breaking the laws of our country—to which these people have chosen to come—breaking and flaunting our laws. I shared the video from the Opera House of these same people chanting ‘death to the Jews’. The audio is perfectly clear.  

We’re letting in people who hate our culture and wish to replace it with their own past culture, which they abandoned and left behind. When faced with such a threat, One Nation believes an immediate outcome should be the deportation of criminals. 

Question agreed to. 


/2 Comments/by

Senator Watt Grilled on Immigration

,

Senate Estimates: I asked Senator Watt what was being done to reduce net immigration.  

The government’s planned reduction is insufficient.  Cutting immigration is not enough.  Temporary visa holders need to leave now.It’s time to put Australians first.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My questions are concise and straightforward, and hopefully the answers will be the same—so that the chair is not disappointed! In the context of the mass release from immigration detention of
approximately 150 noncitizens awaiting deportation, how many of these detainees were in fact released as a result of the decision in NZYQ?

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m very, very sorry: you asked me whether we were talking about migration in outcome 2, and we are, but the matters you’re raising with those questions are relevant to outcome 3, and we’ll be dealing with that tomorrow.

Senator ROBERTS: There you go; you got an early night!

CHAIR: Do you have other questions? I thought there were more general questions about migration numbers. I apologise.

Senator ROBERTS: No.

CHAIR: I’ve listened to so many of your Senate speeches, Senator Roberts. I thought I was pre-empting your questions. But we will be here tomorrow to ask questions of Border Force particularly around those issues.

Senator ROBERTS: And also Immigration, I hope—Home Affairs?

CHAIR: There are other questions that might be relevant to outcome 2. If you want to put them, they might have the officials here for you.

Senator ROBERTS: No, these are to do with the legality of immigration.

Ms Foster: If I can help: because the questions relating to the High Court cover both outcome 2 and outcome 3, we typically try to cover them as a group together so we’re not saying, ‘We can answer a little bit of that and not the rest of it.’ But if there are more general questions on the migration program then we should be able to answer them for you tonight.

Senator ROBERTS: These are more to do with the legalities and what is happening about removing people.

CHAIR: They are related to the same cohort of questions—is that right?

Senator ROBERTS: I think they are.

CHAIR: They are related to the same issues.

Ms Foster: If they are related to the same cohort, it is probably sensible to do them tomorrow as a batch.

Senator ROBERTS: The same cohort and a similar cohort.

CHAIR: It sounds like we will be able to deal with them tomorrow.

Senator Watt: I predict there will be many questions around this issue in the morning. So you will be in good company.

Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps one might be covered off now—the last one I had. For visas requiring accommodation in 2019 it was 1.9 million people; in 2024, at the start of the year, it was 2.3 million plus students
at over half a million, plus a higher percentage of non-productive people. Housing demand has been driven through the roof and prices and rents are skyrocketing. We are in a per capita recession and have been for three
quarters. Minister, it appears to a lot of Australians that the government does not want to be tagged as the government who took us into recession so it is flooding the country with migrants to avoid a technical recession.
Having said correctly that we’ve had three-quarters of a per capita recession, the government, to me, seems to be uncaring about the plight of Australians. In our state’s capital city there are people living under bridges, in cars and in caravans—and I’m talking about working families coming home with their two kids to sleep in a car. I don’t know where they go to the toilet and where they shower. We’ve got it right up the coast—not just in our capital city but right up the coast. The Labor government must remove visa holders. When will Labor resolve the housing crisis and stop the out-of-control and unsustainable growth of Australia’s population? We had 750,000 come in last year.

Senator Watt: I’m not sure that that 750,000 figure is correct, Senator Roberts. But the point really is that the government does believe that migration levels have been unsustainably high. We believe that that is a direct result of the failures of Mr Dutton and other coalition ministers to manage the migration program correctly. That is exactly why we have dramatically reduced the grants of international student visas and that is why we are on track to halve what is known as the net overseas migration figure by next financial year. If you look at the numbers, where they were when we came into office and post-COVID, we are on track to halve that figure by next financial year. I do not think the 750,000 figure is correct, Senator Roberts. What is known as the net overseas migration—

Senator ROBERTS: I wasn’t implying that was net; that was incoming.

Senator Watt: You also have to look at the number of people going out.

Senator ROBERTS: Correct; but 750,000 people coming in is a heck of a lot of people.

Senator Watt: Sure; I agree.

Senator ROBERTS: It is way above the previous record.

Senator Watt: Agreed. As I said, our government believes that migration has been too high. That’s why we’ve taken a range of steps to reduce it, and we are on track to achieve that target. On the point about housing—which is obviously a matter for a different committee—as I pointed out to you before, Senator Roberts, it would really help if we could get your vote in the Senate when we try to spend more money on housing. Unfortunately, so far, you haven’t—

Senator ROBERTS: How many houses have you built, Minister? Zero.

Senator Watt: We have committed about $32 billion worth of funding.

Senator ROBERTS: You have committed how much to housing? You have committed $20 billion to a housing future fund.

Senator Watt: Of the $32 billion that we have committed for housing, $10 billion was for the Housing Australia Future Fund, and unfortunately both you and Senator Hanson voted against that with the coalition.

Senator ROBERTS: We don’t want more bureaucracy; we want tradies to be set loose. That is why we did it.

Senator Watt: But the vote was about creating a housing fund and you voted against it. You voted for less spending on housing.

CHAIR: Senators, I don’t think the question is relevant to—

Senator ROBERTS: How many houses have been built in the last two years?

Senator Watt: You would probably need to go—

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, your question—

Senator ROBERTS: Okay; let’s come back to my question, as the chair is reminding us.

CHAIR: Minister, could you assist me in not speaking over me while I give Senator Roberts some direction. The question you have ultimately ended up asking is not relevant to this committee. That is probably why you have received a response of the kind Minister Watt has given you. If you have more questions in relation to migration, this is the outcome to put them. Otherwise, we will back tomorrow with outcome 3.

Senator ROBERTS: With due respect, Chair, this is calling out Senator Watt because he has not answered my question.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you say ‘with all due respect’ and then continue to talk over me when I have given you a direction as the chair to ask a relevant question, or I can give the call to someone else who has relevant
questions.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. The question for the minister is the same: when will the Labor government remove visa holders to ease the pressure on housing in this country?

Senator Watt: Sorry; are you saying that we should have zero migration to Australia?

Senator ROBERTS: We should have negative, until we get the housing pressure and the infrastructure to catch up.

Senator Watt: What do you mean by negative migration? Do you mean forcing people to leave?

Senator ROBERTS: More people who leave than come.

Senator Watt: The government’s policy is to halve the net increase in migration or net migration numbers by next financial year, and we are well on track to do that. We agree that we have a housing shortage in Australia. That’s why we’ve devoted so much money towards that project. We also recognise that we have a range of jobs and there are not enough people to fill them. If you speak to any building firm in Queensland, they will tell you they need more people. We are funding a lot of training of locals, but the reality is that we need some level of migration to fill those jobs. If you go to any aged-care facility in Queensland or anywhere in Australia—and I go to one pretty regularly to visit a family member—you will see lots of migrant workers there. Our aged-care system would collapse if we did what you suggested, which is stop migration. So it’s a balancing act to make sure that we don’t have too much migration in this country—as was occurring under the policy settings we inherited from the former government—while still making sure that we can deliver the workforce that we need.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, isn’t it true that, under John Howard’s prime ministership, immigration was dramatically increased and it has stayed high since then under both parties—both Labor and Liberal and National party governments?

Senator Watt: My recollection is that the major change under the Howard government was a big shift towards temporary migration. I don’t know what the overall figures were under the Howard government.

Senator ROBERTS: I think it went from 80,000 to over 130,000. Then it went up under the Rudd-Gillard, and the subsequent LNP governments to over 230,000 net. What are you proposing for next year?

Senator Watt: We are proposing that net overseas migration next financial year would in the order of 260,000.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s still very, very high.

Senator Watt: It’s about half of what it was a year or so ago.

Senator PATERSON: This year?

Ms Foster: In 2022-23.

Senator ROBERTS: Senator Watt, I could say that you are much taller than me. That’s not saying much!

Senator Watt: A competition of the shortest men in parliament! Let’s put Senator Farrell in there as well. Senator Ghosh, do you qualify?

Senator ROBERTS: My point is that 250,000 is still a lot.

Senator Watt: But we’re big in heart, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: But 250,000 is a lot. It may be half, but it is still very, very high and it is putting a lot of pressure on housing.

Senator Watt: I agree; which, again, is why we—

Senator ROBERTS: Do we agree?

Senator Watt: I agree that migration has been too high and it is putting pressure on housing, which is why we would have really liked your vote for the Housing Australia Future Fund—which is another committee.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to stay on immigration.

CHAIR: Me too.

Senator Watt: There are two parts of the equation. It is about immigration and—

Senator ROBERTS: That’s right: you’re driving up the demand for housing.

Senator Watt: If we had more homes we mightn’t have such an issue with migration numbers. But we don’t have the homes and that’s what we’re trying to fix. But we are halving migration numbers. International student grants in April were down 38 per cent on last year’s levels. We’ve taken a whole range of other actions to crack down on some of the rorts in the migration system that were left behind by Mr Dutton and his colleagues. But, equally, as I say, if you want to have people look after your family members in aged care, they are not all going to come locally. If you want people to build the homes, they are not all going to come locally. If you want people to work in hospitals, they are not all going to come locally. If we actually said, ‘Close the door entirely to migration,’ you will have a lot of people waiting to get into emergency departments and into aged-care homes et cetera.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s the state our country is in right now. Are you going to build 250,000 new homes next year to accommodate the 250,000 new people coming in?

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I have given you direction about whether those questions are relevant to this committee.

Senator ROBERTS: How is 250,000 new net migrants a low number simply because it is half of what the previous one was? It’s not; it is a very high number.

Senator Watt: The departmental officials could probably take you through the work that was undertaken to determine that figure. I would be confident that, in developing that figure, they took into account the need to
reduce migration and the pressure on the housing system, but also the workforce needs of hospitals, aged-care facilities, construction firms, et cetera. It would be interesting to know what the opposition did to arrive at the various different figures we’ve heard from them. I don’t know if anyone from the opposition here can tell us what their policy actually is.

CHAIR: They’re not here to give evidence, Minister Watt. They are here to ask questions.

Senator Watt: But a lot of work has gone in from the government’s side to come up with the right figure.

CHAIR: Is that the end of your questions, Senator Roberts?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, until tomorrow.

/by