Good afternoon.
For weeks, the press gallery had been waiting for the home affairs minister, Tony Burke, to outline Labor’s changes to the immigration system. Arriving at the National Press Club on Thursday, it felt like a consequential moment.
I was struck by how straightforward Burke’s speech was, outlining the new measures and mostly resisting big political rhetoric. No matter how sensible or measured some might see the changes, the policy debate can’t be separated from the intense political fight going on with One Nation and the Coalition.
Afterwards, Burke visited Guardian Australia’s Canberra bureau to record an episode of our Australian Politics podcast. He showed me the notes he used for the speech: just a few handwritten pages with dot points.
Burke appears eager to force evidence into the debate. But will facts cut through with voters?
Many of you wrote in this week about Labor’s immigration plans, and I’ve answered some of your questions below. I hope you enjoy.
‘Trying to control the political debate’
Douglas Waite asked why politicians don’t ‘own the issue and plan in advance to meet the needs of the country’?
Tom McIlroy writes: Thanks for your question, Douglas. It is one that a lot of readers have asked, given politicians are quick to talk up the benefits of immigration in creating modern Australia. The period since the pandemic border closures is proof that controlling levels of people coming and going from the country is very difficult, and high numbers of overseas arrivals have supercharged the political debate. My sense is that Labor’s plan is about giving a bit more control to the government, including moving away from demand-driven programs with unlimited numbers, and talking up elements which are about better planning and meeting the needs of the country. Labor makes the point they are already bringing down net overseas migration. On Thursday we learned the number had eased to 292,000 in the year to March, from 299,000 in December. Tony Burke certainly believes Labor is more serious than One Nation or the Coalition about properly planning migration levels, and ensuring we have the overseas workers we need.
Eric asked: ‘How will the government ensure that those who are here illegally are dealt with? How will they avoid endless legal manoeuvres which are sure to occur?’
Tom McIlroy writes: Eric, Tony Burke told us on Thursday that he was directing the home affairs department to return to the enforcement procedures which were in place until about 2015. That means that people found to be overstaying their visas will face compliance checks and deportation more quickly. About 80,000 people are in the country right now without an ongoing visa. To help, home affairs will add 100 new enforcement workers and add capacity for about 250 additional beds in immigration detention centres. They are looking at sites near airports to build more capacity and have already identified a former quarantine facility in Melbourne that could be used for overstayers. The Greens likened this plan to Donald Trump’s hardline deportation policy, but Labor says it will be measured and sensible. The numbers are small compared with the US, and Burke says awareness of compliance measures is likely to bring about behavioural change. He thinks some people will more quickly leave the country if there is a risk of arrest and detention. One Nation also plans to ramp up deportations if it gets into power.
Allesandro queried: ‘Do you think there will be changes or exceptions made to the blanket “no further stay” rule in the months to come?’
Tom McIlroy writes: I can’t say if there will be exceptions or future changes on particular provisions, but what we do know is that, other than protection visas, people coming to Australia on visitor visas will also be subject to the “no further stay” provisions you mention. Burke said anyone already in Australia won’t be affected by the change, but because the government wants fewer non-citizens in the country, family members visiting from overseas for weddings or to see a dying relative will have this condition added. It will be no doubt be tough for families who are split across borders. We will keep tracking this and bring you any news on how it is playing out in the real world.
Peter asked if the Labor party was ‘pandering’ to One Nation’s ‘fear and hatred’ on immigration.
Tom McIlroy writes: Labor knows it is up against it on immigration, and I think Thursday’s speech was the start of the government trying to pull back some control of the political debate. Burke resisted huge cuts to the numbers, though he acknowledged he would like to do more if he could pass changes through parliament. The government will spend the next year or so thinking about how to fight One Nation, and Burke will play a role in this. Although his appearance at the press club was considered and thoughtful, he can be a tough adversary in parliament and has been scathing against the Coalition and Pauline Hanson in recent weeks. Spelling it out to the electorate will also require a good social media game, something One Nation thinks they are better at than the major parties. It will make for interesting politics between now and the election.
And John White got in touch to tell us what he thinks is missing from the political debate, writing: I am appalled by the absence of justice and common sense in Labor’s recent immigration policy debacle. Seeking asylum is a basic human right and therefore should never be proscribed by legislation. Australian food producers require seasonal workers – including backpackers. Labor needs a 50-year plan for the “country we choose to become” rather than an arbitrary number derived from political and economic rationalism and some vague idea of “the country we hope to become”. The question to be asked is not “what is affordable”; the question to be asked is “what is needed, humane and just” – and how will we implement that?
Shadow home affairs minister Jonno Duniam. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP
