When a political party cops more than its fair share of mud-slinging, they’re probably on the money.
Greens senators routinely apply their double standards to One Nation senators during parliamentary debates. Attempting to discredit the speaker rather than engage in the contest of ideas is all part of the game for the left.
For example, during debate on One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts’ motion calling for a parliamentary inquiry into the economic realities of mass migration, discussion in the Senate turned into an irrational bin fire.
It’s a real shame, because in the absence of a credible opposition to represent the views of mainstream Australia, One Nation’s policies are not seeing the light of day they deserve.
Senator Roberts has called for a straightforward parliamentary inquiry into the impacts of mass immigration on housing prices, rentals, wages, infrastructure (such as schools, roads, and hospitals), and social cohesion.
He has invited submissions from all sides, stating that if data shows immigration as a strength, Australians should see it.
Otherwise, our immigration policy needs re-evaluation.
During the debate, the Greens went on a rant that, in my opinion, was in equal measure disrespectful and personal, conflating the economic impact of immigration with alleged extremist criminal actions that were unrelated to both One Nation and Senator Roberts’ motion.
I spoke with Senator Roberts this week about his immigration inquiry motion.
Senator Roberts holds an MBA from the University of Chicago, completing his masters in his mid-thirties. The University of Chicago is one of the most impactful universities in the world, with its graduates’ economic ideas arguably enabling greater prosperity and economic freedom for billions of people globally.
Roberts praised the university’s rigour, discipline, and commitment to free debate with no ‘safe spaces’, contrasting it with other institutions. He met his wife there and values data-driven analysis, which he sees as lacking in Australian governance.
Roberts emphasises data-driven policy, including on climate and immigration. He believes that policy should be based on data rather than hype, emotions, or narratives. He criticised the Australian Parliament for ignoring or contradicting real-world data, leading to poor governance.
He noted that severe housing shortages are causing people in Queensland (from Cairns to Coolangatta) to live in tents, cars, and parks and young people unable to afford homes. Our politicians should be doing everything possible to fix the problem, including examining the impact of immigration on housing.
How is mass immigration (that is, more people regardless of their personal characteristics) affecting our economy? Roberts says the short answer is that we don’t know.
He stated that economic impacts might also include wage suppression due to an influx of workers (some possibly unregistered and paid cash), and infrastructure overload leading to traffic jams and service strains.
Other issues that might be investigated by the inquiry include those associated with the selection of immigrants, which Roberts believes has shifted from selective, contributing migrants to those who burden taxpayers without contributing. Indeed, there is growing evidence of cultural and social effects in the West that is impacting national cohesion by promoting multiculturalism, leading to divided enclaves. Senator Roberts believes in the idea of ‘One Nation’ that prioritises citizens who are here, right now.
To address the problem, One Nation proposes a policy of net negative migration to reduce population slightly by admitting fewer than those leaving.
There is also some low-hanging fruit. Deporting 75,000 illegal residents would free up about 30,000 houses, as would sending home some 100,000 non-compliant international students who are focused on working here rather than studying.
This all makes sense. But Roberts’ critics routinely use smears of racism and emotional distractions instead of engaging in data-based arguments.
The recent marches against mass immigration were largely positive events across Australia, filled with everyday Australians, all displaying pride in their country. Not anti-migrant or racist, but specifically against mass immigration’s destructive effects. Roberts attended the Canberra march and praised the atmosphere.
Opponents of Pauline Hanson have smeared her views for decades. But Roberts notes her views are now seen as prescient and One Nation is regarded as mainstream.
Roberts’ inquiry would highlight a ‘policy void’ in addressing middle Australia’s concerns. This is not merely his views, with mainstream newspapers noting the growing dissatisfaction of Middle Australia with immigration policy. The double standards the major parties tout when it comes to mass immigration aren’t helping.
Senator Roberts has a remarkably calm and rational character. He has the education and experience that means his focus on governance failures and the need to fill policy gaps with data is not some idle catchcry.
In the meantime, the double-standards deployed by One Nation’s opponents ensures that narratives and slogans dominate our immigration policy debate, rather than sober judgements based on data and empirical evidence.
Labor’s claims that immigration is a success story is backed by their announcement this week to keep immigration rates the same at 185,000 permanent visas per year.
Rather than engage in the emotional narrative, Senator Roberts is asking for our Parliament to focus on the data:
‘If the data shows immigration is our strength, then let the Australian people see for themselves.’
I daresay most Middle Australians would agree.
Dr Michael de Percy @FlaneurPolitiq is the Spectator Australia’s Canberra Press Gallery Correspondent. If you would like to support his writing, or read more of Michael, please visit his website.
