Thank you very much, Georgina, for that generous introduction.
I am sincerely grateful for the opportunity to speak to you all tonight. It's great to see so many familiar faces - and a few new ones for that matter, as well! And it is a genuine privilege to be asked to open the Institute's fourth annual Policy Dialogue.
These dialogues perfectly complement the Institute's dual mission: preserving the principles that shaped Robert Menzies' vision for Australia - especially freedom, opportunity, enterprise and individual dignity - while also applying them to today's challenges.
That approach is especially important when it comes to immigration.
Few areas of policy have had a greater impact in shaping modern Australia, or depend more heavily upon competent government, public confidence and a clear national interest.
And, unfortunately, few have been as poorly managed over the past four years. Australians have seen the damage when the national migration program becomes too large, when its standards are too low and when Ministers lose sight of its basic objectives.
That's not to imply that immigration should not continue to play a very important part in our future as well. Nor is it to dispute that immigration has delivered innumerable and profound benefits for our country. Indeed, the historical verdict on those questions is clear.
Instead, and as has been specifically identified by those at the Institute who created the topic for this speech tonight, the much more challenging and pressing question is: what are the conditions necessary for immigration to remain successful?
To tackle that question, I'm intending to base much of the remainder of this speech around five key themes. Firstly, Australia's immigration history; secondly, our national identity; third, the economic impacts and sustainability of immigration; fourth, matters relating to social cohesion and integration; and, finally and more practically, the kinds of design changes we should think about making to our migration program into the future.
HISTORY OF IMMIGRATION: POPULATE OR PERISH
So let's begin that by thinking about the history of immigration into Australia.
For a lot of people, it's an article of faith that Australia has enjoyed one of the proudest immigration histories in the world.
Millions of people have come to this country, worked hard, raised families, established businesses, served their communities and become loyal Australian citizens.
Many of them have not merely lived in Australia; they have helped to build Australia.
The great post-war immigration program was not conceived simply as a way of enlarging the population or increasing gross domestic product. It was part of a larger project of national development.
The phrase "populate or perish" captured the urgency of the time. Australia had emerged from war with a small population, a vast continent and a renewed awareness of its strategic vulnerability.
Population growth was linked to national security, industrial development and economic strength.
Immigration was therefore carefully and decisively connected to employment, housing, infrastructure, manufacturing and citizenship.
Migrants helped build the Snowy Mountains Scheme, worked in factories, mines, farms and construction, and established enterprises that employed generations of Australians.
It was migration with a national purpose, underpinned by a near-universal sense of pride about what it was helping to achieve.
But the circumstances which gave rise to "populate or perish" were particular to their time.
Australia today is more populous, more urbanised and constrained in other ways. Our labour market, housing issues and strategic and national security challenges, for instance, are all very different.
One of the lessons of the post-war program was not that more immigration is always better.
Rather, it demonstrated that immigration best succeeds when it is tied to clear national objectives, supported by housing and infrastructure, and accompanied by an expectation that newcomers will become part of a shared Australian life and experience.
Robert Menzies understood that national strength could not be reduced to economic aggregates.
His language about "homes material", "homes human" and "homes spiritual" reflected an understanding that a successful society depends upon material security, but also upon loyalty, shared institutions, aspiration and a common civic culture.
And those insights remain as relevant to policymaking today as they did in his time in politics. Or at least they should do - to any competent and responsible government.
DEFINING AUSTRALIA'S NATIONAL IDENTITY
Immigration also inevitably raises another deep and abiding question: namely, what is the Australia into which people are being invited? And that's a question that leads us to the second of the five themes to which I referred earlier. One about defining Australia's national identity.
Obviously, a nation is much more than just a geographical area or an economic marketplace.
It is a common home and rallying point for people connected across generations by institutions, loyalties, values, interests, responsibilities and a shared future.
Australia is tolerant and pluralist.
People are free to practise their religion, preserve family traditions, speak other languages and maintain connections with their heritage.
But pluralism can flourish only within a common civic framework.
That framework includes allegiance to Australia; respect for parliamentary democracy; equality before the law; freedom of speech, conscience and religion; equal rights and dignity for women and men; tolerance of difference; rejection of political and religious violence; and recognition that Australian law stands above political, familial, sectarian or religious demands.
These are not optional cultural preferences. They are the foundations of a free society.
The overwhelming majority of migrants come to Australia with good intent.
They want to work hard and raise their families here, to love their adopted country and to meaningfully contribute.
Many have escaped authoritarianism, sectarianism, corruption or conflict - and deeply value Australia's freedoms.
We should honour them by refusing to confuse their contribution with the conduct of the minority who reject Australia.
But a confident country must also articulate what it expects.
Integration does not mean erasing heritage. Or imposing a 'monoculture', either - whatever that might be! But it does mean developing a primary loyalty to Australia and participating in a common national life.
English proficiency is central to that process.
A shared public language enables people to work, study, understand their rights, access services, participate in democratic debate and build relationships beyond their immediate community.
It is also a source of independence, especially for people who might otherwise become isolated or dependent upon family members or intermediaries.
Government should provide opportunities to learn English, and permanent residents should use them.
Citizenship must remain the ultimate expression of belonging.
It is not merely an administrative entitlement acquired through the passage of time. It is membership of our national political community, and the commitment must run both ways: if you commit to Australia, Australia will commit to you.
A successful immigration program invites people to become part of Australia's national inheritance. It does not ask Australia to abandon that inheritance in order to accommodate them.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS AND SUSTAINABILITY
The third theme on which I want to touch relates to economic impact and sustainability.
An immigration program cannot and should not be defined or judged simply by whether it increases the total size of the economy.
A larger population will generally produce a larger economy. More people consume more goods, rent more homes, use more services and pay more taxes.
But that does not necessarily mean Australians are becoming more productive or more prosperous.
Notwithstanding what some public servants in Canberra (especially in Treasury) have long believed, the proper test is not whether immigration produces a bigger Australia. It is whether it helps produce a better Australia.
Does it lift productivity and living standards per person?
Does it fill genuine and enduring skills shortages?
Does it encourage investment, enterprise and the transfer of knowledge?
Does it complement the training of Australians - or substitute for it?
And is its scale consistent with the number of homes, schools, hospitals, roads and other infrastructure and services the country can realistically provide?
These are practical questions, not ideological or antagonistic ones.
For too long, migration and housing have been treated as separate areas of policy.
Every additional household creates additional demand, and every significant population increase has serious consequences for rents, home prices, infrastructure and public services.
Australia's housing crisis has many causes: slow planning systems; inadequate land releases; higher construction costs; delayed infrastructure; and expensive regulation.
All require reform.
But rapid population growth has also profoundly affected demand.
This is not an argument that should set existing Australians against new migrants.
New arrivals face the same high rents, and want the same opportunity to buy a home and build a family.
The responsibility and culpability instead rests right now with the Albanese Government, because it is that government that controls the migration settings.
For the Coalition's part, we believe that migration should be linked to the number of homes actually completed. Not the numbers of homes promised, announced or contained in aspirational targets.
And, particularly while the housing market catches up from the extraordinary pressures of recent years, migration must not remain above that ceiling.
This is a question of intergenerational fairness.
Home ownership has long been central to the Australian social compact. Menzies understood that owning a home gave families security, encouraged saving and responsibility, and citizens a tangible stake in their community and country.
Today, too many younger Australians who work hard and save find that opportunities have been pulled beyond their reach.
Migration settings should not reinforce that transfer of opportunity away from the next generation.
Sustainability also requires a genuinely skilled program.
A visa labelled "skilled" should deliver identifiable skills benefits.
Australia should compete vigorously for exceptional scientists, doctors, engineers, tradespeople, entrepreneurs, cyber specialists and others who can strengthen our national capabilities.
But shortage lists must be based on transparent evidence. There should be a stronger link between the occupation used to secure a visa and the work performed after arrival.
Employers should not be able to avoid training Australians, improving conditions or paying competitive wages by relying indefinitely upon imported labour.
The objective should not be cheaper labour or population-led headline growth.
It should be a more productive nation in which living standards rise.
SOCIAL COHESION
The fourth theme is social cohesion.
Social cohesion cannot be manufactured through government advertising. It rests upon trust, reciprocity and a sense that people are participating in a common national project.
That trust is undeniably weakened when governments refuse to discuss legitimate concerns, and when criticism of migration policy is conflated as hostility towards migrants.
Most Australians can recognise the extraordinary contribution of migrants while believing current immigration is too high; value multicultural Australia while expecting integration; welcome genuine refugees while demanding secure borders; and support skilled migration while still asking whether the program is actually delivering the skills our country needs.
And, frankly, Australians from migrant backgrounds are often among the strongest advocates of all for firm standards and Australian values, because many understand the link - from first-hand experience - between those standards and values and successful outcomes.
Social cohesion requires fairness.
People who follow the rules should not be disadvantaged by those who abuse them.
Temporary visas should end in departure when they expire.
Those with no lawful right to remain should be removable, and facilitators of fraud or exploitation should face consequences.
And where a non-citizen promotes violence or hatred, engages in serious intimidation or demonstrates contempt for Australia's fundamental democratic principles, our national government must be willing to act.
Secure borders are also essential.
Australia's experience with illegal maritime arrivals in earlier decades graphically demonstrated that weak policy creates a market for criminal people smuggling ventures, places lives at risk and undermines confidence in the orderly humanitarian program.
Strong borders are not the opposite of compassion. They actually make an orderly and sustainable humanitarian program more possible.
Social cohesion is undeniably strengthened when citizens believe the system is controlled, fair and directed towards the national interest.
Conversely, it is severely weakened when governments appear unable (or unwilling) to enforce their own laws.
DESIGNING A FUTURE
The last of the five themes is the future design of our immigration program.
The starting point for that design should be confidence in Australia and what it embodies and represents.
Confidence that this is a nation worth joining. Confidence that our institutions, freedoms and values are an inheritance worth defending. And … to echo the words of another outstanding former Liberal Prime Minister … confidence that we can remain open to good people without surrendering the right to determine who comes here and the circumstances in which they come.
For both the short and long term, and to return where I began this speech: our migration program should be designed around several clear principles.
Its scale must be sustainable and connected to housing and infrastructure capacity.
The administration and oversight of every visa stream should be tested against the Australian national interest.
Skilled migration should deliver measurable productivity and skills benefits, while strengthening rather than displacing investment in Australians.
Temporary migration should be genuinely temporary unless a clear and deliberate pathway to permanent settlement has been offered and is justified.
Australian values should be real obligations, not simply words on an application form.
And border control, security screening, compliance and removal capabilities must be strong enough to maintain the integrity of the system as a whole.
The program should also be more transparent.
Australians deserve clearer information about permanent and temporary migration, visa grants, bridging visas, overstayers, labour market outcomes, processing backlogs and population impacts on housing and infrastructure.
Forecasts should also be more accountable. When they are exceeded, Ministers should explain why. When programs fail, they should be revised or abolished accordingly.
Most importantly, the future program must retain democratic consent.
That means reducing numbers when they exceed our capacity; insisting upon higher skills and character standards; demanding improved integration; and enforcing the law and our values.
CONCLUSION
To bring together the key considerations behind all of those five themes: immigration policymaking should really not have become as complex and tortured as it has been in recent years.
In fact, many of the fundamentals should actually be relatively obvious.
Much of Australia's national thinking and decision making in this area should be predicated upon commonsense contemplation of our key social and economic interests as a country.
Australia does not need to choose between being an immigration nation and controlling immigration.
Control is what allows an immigration nation to succeed.
We do not need to choose between migration and home ownership. But migration intakes must be better aligned with the number of homes and services Australia can provide.
We do not need to choose between economic contribution and social cohesion. A well-designed and well-implemented program strengthens both.
We do not need to choose between respecting personal heritage and affirming Australian values. Millions of Australians demonstrate every day that the two can coexist.
And we do not need to choose between compassion and secure borders. A system without order will ultimately sustain neither.
The foremost challenge is to reconnect immigration with nation-building:
- matching Australia's capacity;
- meeting genuine national needs;
- lifting productivity and living standards;
- raising the standards of skills, character and conduct; and
encouraging newcomers to learn English, participate, integrate and respect Australian values.
It should welcome those who want to become part of our nation - and be prepared to reject those who seek to diminish or divide it, whether through refusal of an entry visa or the deportation of divisive non-citizens already here.
Australia remains one of the freest, safest and most prosperous societies in the world. That should give us confidence, but not complacency about recent failures, including the unprecedented and unmanaged increases in arrivals during the past four years.
Our objective should not be a bigger Australia for its own sake. It should be a better Australia.
An Australia in which living standards rise and home ownership is attainable. An Australia which rewards work, investment and enterprise. An Australia secure in its borders, confident in its values, and worth joining, building and protecting.
And let me conclude by saying that should be the case for everyone already here and for everyone who will join us in the years to come.
In the meantime, thank you very much again for inviting me here tonight to help open this dialogue - and to help spur the many important conversations you will no doubt enjoy over the hours ahead.
Thank you.
