Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018; Second Reading

Bell argued that the bill gave Australians a voice on immigration levels, which he claimed were driving infrastructure strain and economic mismanagement. Bell asserted that mass immigration artificially inflated GDP while suppressing wages and housing affordability, citing low rental vacancy rates and high unemployment among Australians. Bell criticized other parties for ignoring public concerns and claimed that international treaties should not supersede the will of the Australian people regarding migration numbers.

Payman opposed the bill, describing it as a divisive stunt that distracted from real economic issues like cost-of-living pressures and housing policy failures. Payman cited data showing that population growth had returned to pre-pandemic levels and that dwelling construction had outpaced population growth over the past decade. Payman argued that immigrants were essential to maintaining healthcare, construction, and other services, and that the bill promoted fear rather than evidence-based policy.

Whitten supported the bill, arguing that high migration levels had led to severe housing shortages and increased rents, particularly in Western Australia. Whitten claimed that the government's immigration policies included few genuinely skilled workers and that productivity had suffered due to an influx of low-skilled labor. Whitten emphasized that the plebiscite would allow the public to demand accountability and end what he described as reckless migration policies.

Shoebridge opposed the bill, criticizing it as nonsensical and divisive, and arguing that the housing crisis was caused by the privatization of TAFE and lack of public housing investment rather than migration. Shoebridge claimed that both Labor and the Coalition had failed to address the root causes of housing unaffordability by relying on tax incentives for property investors instead of building public infrastructure. Shoebridge rejected the bill as a racist attempt to divide society and distract from systemic policy failures.

Tyrrell opposed the bill, arguing that migrants were vital to Tasmania's economy and social services, particularly in healthcare and transport sectors. Tyrrell highlighted the state's aging demographic and the need for new skills and labor to sustain growth and prosperity. Tyrrell emphasized that migrants contributed positively to the community and that the plebiscite was unnecessary and divisive.

McKenzie stated that while she supported giving Australians a say on sustainable migration levels, she opposed the plebiscite model as the appropriate pathway. McKenzie acknowledged that high migration levels had contributed to housing shortages and tent cities, citing significant increases in net overseas migration under the current government. McKenzie argued that the issue required careful policy consideration rather than a simple plebiscite vote.