A Liberal senator has criticized the use of “inflammatory and irresponsible” language in the ongoing debate over Australia’s immigration levels, urging colleagues to approach the issue with respect and honesty to avoid alienating voters. Andrew McLachlan, a South Australian backbencher, has specifically condemned the term “mass migration,” labeling it both “technically inaccurate” and “extremely unhelpful.”
The comments from McLachlan come at a time of increasing concern among some Liberal MPs as the Coalition prepares to discuss the foundational “principles” of its immigration policy. This debate threatens to exacerbate internal divisions reminiscent of those seen during the contentious discussions over net zero emissions policy.
Controversial Terminology and Political Tensions
The term “mass migration” has become a rallying cry for right-wing figures advocating for a reduction in Australia’s immigration levels. Notable figures such as Liberal senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, and groups like the Institute of Public Affairs have employed the phrase to suggest that the country’s immigration rate is unsustainable.
Price, who faced dismissal from the shadow ministry following controversial comments regarding Indian migrants, reiterated the term during a recent Senate estimates session. She defended her stance, stating, “It’s utterly ridiculous to be painted as a racist when addressing an issue of mass migration in this country that is of concern.”
The Australian Bureau of Statistics has publicly refuted the “mass migration” narrative, issuing a statement in August to clarify the misuse of overseas arrivals data.
Internal Coalition Dynamics
McLachlan’s remarks underscore a broader anxiety within the Coalition about the potential backlash from multicultural communities if the immigration debate is not handled with sensitivity. He warned, “The continued use of the term ‘mass migration’ by some is not only technically inaccurate but also extremely unhelpful to the tone of the discussion. The term can be used to disguise more dangerous sentiments.”
Recent internal discussions have seen McLachlan engage in a tense debate with Coalition colleagues over a One Nation motion that partly blamed “mass migration” for the housing crisis. The Coalition ultimately opposed the motion and distanced itself from a separate One Nation bill proposing a plebiscite on a “zero net migration policy” for five years.
Leadership Pressures and Policy Formulation
As Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party gains traction in the polls, opposition leader Sussan Ley faces mounting pressure to endorse significant cuts to immigration levels to regain right-wing voter support. Andrew Hastie, a potential future leadership contender, has been particularly vocal, having resigned from Ley’s frontbench to advocate for reduced immigration.
Hastie argued that current immigration levels make Australians “feel like strangers in our own home,” while Ley attributed societal issues like housing shortages to poor governmental planning rather than immigration.
The task of shaping the opposition’s immigration policy now falls to Jonathon Duniam, the shadow home affairs minister, and Paul Scarr, the shadow immigration minister. They are expected to outline the policy’s guiding principles before the end of the year, although a specific target for net overseas migration has yet to be set.
Broader Implications and Future Directions
The debate over immigration is not solely a matter of numbers but also involves broader economic and social considerations. Andrew Bragg, the shadow housing minister, has cautioned against attributing the housing crisis solely to immigration. In an email to supporters, he stated, “The increased demand from Labor’s reckless migration programme has been damaging but it is not the major driver. The major driver of the housing crisis is a collapse in housing supply.”
Meanwhile, Michaelia Cash, the shadow foreign affairs minister, has promoted an Australia-first immigration policy on social media, emphasizing the importance of balancing migration with the preservation of Australian values and lifestyle.
As the Coalition navigates these complex issues, the outcome of its internal debates will likely have significant implications for its electoral prospects and the broader national discourse on immigration.
