Can Australia actually have a sensible debate about immigration?

It is sobering to realise that it is more than a quarter of a century since Pauline Hanson burst onto Australia's national political stage with her provocative maiden speech which complained that "mainstream Australians" were being subjected to a form of "reverse racism" when it came to Aboriginal people, and that the nation was in danger of being "swamped by Asians".

Hanson's comments changed the parameters of what was acceptable to say and do in our national politics, just as social media has since changed what level of personal abuse is acceptable both here and globally.

Vilification of communities with origins in Asia, Africa and the Middle East; Muslims being generically targeted as terrorists; a rise in anti-Semitism; and abuse of Indigenous Australians: these have all, unfortunately, become things that some of our political leaders are prepared to pursue, only faintly condemn, or at the least deal with very inconsistently.

Migration is intrinsically tied up in all these provocations: our intolerance of each new wave of migrants stems back to the early days of the colony. But just now that intolerance is also tied up in questions about our economy and about a very real housing crisis faced by many Australian families.

And now it is set against the backdrop of the language used, and pledges made, in the US election campaign — including president-elect Donald Trump's pledge to run "the largest deportation plan in US history" to remove millions of undocumented migrants — and echoed in other anti-migration pledges made in other countries around the world.

Australia's migration issues are very different to the ones in the United States, where the presence of 11 million or more undocumented migrants, and the continued flow of more from across the border, has electrified the issue.

But as is the case in many other countries as the world turns more protectionist, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton observed last week that the migration issues in the US "were very real in the election and I think they're going to be real in the upcoming election here".

He was also quick to leap on the discovery of four foreign nationals on a remote island in the Northern Territory this week, and a High Court loss by the Albanese government on ankle bracelets for released detainees, to argue our border security is weak and porous to criminals.

But we are being poorly served by our politicians on the much more substantive issue of our overall migration numbers and what drives them; what their overall economic impact might be; how much capacity we have to change them; and, if we want to change them, what might be involved.

Capping international student numbers

Both sides of politics have talked about cutting what is known as the net overseas migration (NOM) numbers. That is, the number of arrivals minus departures. Our permanent migration program is only a fraction of this number. The NOM numbers are dominated by temporary arrivals, of which international students are the most conspicuous group.

Ever since John Howard as prime minister wanted to look like he was keeping migration numbers down, but also facilitating the movement of people to deal with chronic labour shortages, temporary skilled visas and other visas that help fill yawning gaps in our labour market such as regional workers have dominated migration patterns.

There are no caps on the numbers of these visas. And you can see the sort of uproar that is created when you try to impose some in the current brawl about caps on international student numbers.

The Senate is due to consider the government's attempt to put those caps in place next week, amid universities screaming about the impact it will have on their finances and warnings of what it will do the broader economy.

The latest warning comes from English Australia, the national peak body for the English language teaching sector in Australia, which has commissioned new modelling that suggests the economy will lose about $4 billion in spending on living expenses alone by international students, as well as hitting labour markets in industries including hospitality, aged and child care and construction.

The Albanese government has already tried to cut back student numbers via administrative means such as reimposing higher visa fees and reducing the number of hours students can work in Australia — reversing policies introduced by the Morrison government in its rush to get students back into the country after the pandemic.

The Coalition says it will cut the NOM, but how?

The Coalition has been walking both sides of the street on the issue of foreign students. Peter Dutton has referred to international students as the "modern version of boat arrivals", yet the opposition has been critical of Labor's proposals to put caps on foreign student numbers, arguing it would hurt regional and smaller universities.

The government is hoping the caps, along with the departure of at least some international students as they finish their studies, will deliver the lower NOM forecasts contained in the Budget papers, which forecast net migration will fall from 520,000 in 2022-23 to 395,000 in the financial year just finished and 260,000 in the current financial year.

Immigration expert Dr Abul Rizvi says the 2023-24 forecast has been "clearly missed by a long way" and the government is "highly likely to miss" the current year forecast "by a very long way".

Peter Dutton announced in his Budget reply that the Coalition would cut the permanent migration program by 25 per cent to 160,000 and reduce "excessive numbers of foreign students studying at metropolitan universities" by setting a cap on foreign student numbers. His shadow treasurer, Angus Taylor, said the Coalition would cut the NOM by 25 per cent.

But the Coalition has given little detail about how it would actually cut the NOM. And it is exceptionally difficult to do that both because of the lack of caps and because, well, we need the people.

The high number of temporary visas is a function of demand: we still have a very tight labour market, particularly in areas like health and aged care. People come to Australia because they are confident they will get a job.

Countries like New Zealand and Canada have seen big falls in their migration numbers. But that has followed significant increases in their unemployment rates.

Both sides are culpable for the mess

So migration numbers, under current policy settings both reflect, and add to, economic growth. But the current policy settings don't necessarily give us the range of skilled workers we need.

The complaint that our skills targets list doesn't adequately reflect the need for "tradies" overlooks the way systems in Australia work against any tradies actually being able to come here.

A complex set of arrangements surrounding apprenticeships — and requiring the cooperation of TAFEs, federal and state government, and industry (for starters) to change — makes overseas hires difficult: foreigners can't access apprenticeships because apprenticeships receive government subsidies and because there is a mismatch between the minimum number of hours apprentices have to spend in the classroom and how many overseas students have to spend in the classroom.

It's all very complicated. And it has been complicated for at least as long as Pauline Hanson has been around. That means both sides of politics are culpable for the mess.

It's just such a shame that beyond any issues of social cohesion, the cheap points of politics mean we have little sensible debate about fixing our migration system so that it works better for everyone and for the economy. A looming election only appears likely to make sensible debate even more unattainable.

Laura Tingle is 7.30's chief political correspondent.