Good afternoon.
Sometimes the job of covering federal politics can be a waiting game.
After waiting for months to learn the Coalition’s plans on immigration policy, Angus Taylor announced what he called “the biggest cut in Australian history” this week. Then, after rumblings the government could backflip on a proposed ban on credit card payments for tax debts to the ATO, the treasurer jumped on Friday.
The changing political landscape – particularly the rise of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation – is creating some of the most dynamic conditions in Canberra in a long time.
With parliament returning next week, political nerds as well as journalists won’t have to wait long to see where things go next.
Thank you for writing in with all of your questions and comments. Economics editor Patrick Commins and I answered a selection below.
Your questions answered
On the topic of parliament returning, Dave from Sydney asked: “What major debates and talking points” will drive the political agenda when politicians arrive back in the capital?
Tom McIlroy writes: We are bracing ourselves for next week, when MPs will be back in Canberra for four days of sittings. I expect we will be talking a lot about AI and the immigration policy debate, as well as a universities reform bill. Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers are facing growing pressure over their economic strategy, with interest rates high and families struggling with the cost of living. Labor’s plans to remove the more generous private health insurance rebate for people over 65 look increasingly friendless, and moves by the tax office to stop accepting small payments with credit cards already forced the government’s hand. Sitting weeks have an energy all of their own, and there are only four left before the summer break. If bread and butter issues are still causing the government headaches, it could be a long summer for Albanese and Chalmers. So, the next few fortnights could be crucial as Labor races to finalise its to-do list in an effort to reassure voters who are growing weary.
Patricia wondered if: “The Coalition released their immigration policy at the wrong time? Labor seemed to be getting a lot of negative press on the economy and on AI. But with everyone talking about immigration, did that end up being a good thing for Labor?”
Tom McIlroy writes: Tuesday’s announcement by Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan did shift the debate away from the economy while the prime minister was in Fiji for the pre-Cop meeting. My sense is the Coalition wanted to announce its policy sooner rather than later, to try to highlight differences with One Nation and keep pressure on the government over management of the immigration system. One factor on the timing might be the looming retirement of Jonno Duniam, the shadow home affairs minister, who has been involved in the policy development process but is due to leave parliament within weeks. Taylor has done a slew of interviews about the policy, and seems eager to talk about it, even if it pulls focus from the government, so he must think it’s working for the opposition.
The people at the centre of the immigration debate
Zo asked: “I’m a little disappointed that the Guardian’s dedicated political news is reporting on Australia’s descent into far-right politics as if it is some sort of sports contest. Where are the voices of the people who will be directly affected by these cuts?”
Tom McIlroy writes: Thanks for this reminder that we need to always remember the human side of the news. It is so easy in Canberra to get sucked into the politics, and focus too heavily on abstract policy details and economic effect, so there’s room for improvement. But our Guardian colleagues are not missing the bigger picture. In February, Rafqa Touma and Blake Sharp-Wiggins visited Lakemba to talk with locals about Pauline Hanson’s rise in support. In July, Adeshola Ore travelled to Barnaby Joyce’s electorate of New England to find out how his defection was being received in what has become a bustling multicultural community. Last month, Achol Arok talked with migrants living in Australia about how the immigration debate was being received in their communities. I learned a lot from each of these stories. Our team in Canberra have dug deeper as well: Patrick Commins has compared Australia and Canada on management of immigration, and Krishani Dhanji spoke this week with the university sector about what Taylor’s policy would look like in the real world.
Zo also wrote in seeking more clarity on the numbers political parties cite when talking about immigration: “The numbers of migrants the parties are touting seem a little meaningless to me. What I want to know is what good evidence says about whether immigration cuts will actually improve life for the average person, and if so, which temporary migration paths actually need changing to achieve that? If not, what policies will actually work to address housing and cost of living? And which politicians are willing to back them?”
Patrick Commins writes: It’s a good question, the bottom line is there is no good evidence that slashing migration will improve life for the average person. That’s because politics – not economics – are driving these policy proposals, with One Nation behind the wheel. Think of it as a grand experiment, but without the science. A lot of Australians are upset about the high cost of living and, particularly in the regions, access to services like affordable healthcare. Migrants are a useful scapegoat, and not for the first time. We do know there are benefits to the national economy from migration: they tend to be younger, more skilled and more motivated than the average incumbent. This has fiscal and economic benefits. They also are plugging a lot of gaps in the workforce – especially in the care economy and outside the major cities. But stronger population growth does put pressure on things like housing – which is an industry that struggles to build enough homes to meet the demand. Slashing migration could mean cheaper rents than otherwise, particularly in inner-city areas where a lot of international students tend to be. All that said, there are good reasons to improve the migration system – especially the temporary visa programs, which have been left unregulated. The Albanese government has made some reasonable proposals, including prioritising visas for skilled workers in areas of need. Labor also plans to stop international students extending their stays for years and years, doing more to make visa overstayers go back home and limiting the number of backpackers who stay for two or three years.
Photograph: Michael Errey/AAP
