'They are lying!': Tom Elliott slams government dishonesty over immigration | 3AW Melbourne

Well, more evidence has emerged that high rates of immigration, and we still have very high immigration here in Australia, is nothing more than a giant Ponzi scheme.Now, if you don't know what a Ponzi scheme is, it's a bit like the old aeroplane game where you get more and more people to keep joining this thing where they put money in and the people who get in early take the money out and the scheme eventually collapses when people stop putting money in.And they used to do this, they'd sort of have imaginary seats on an aeroplane, it was called the aeroplane game.Immigration is the same.Now, the Institute of Public Affairs, and we'll speak to them after night, they've come up with figures today saying that in the year to May this year, we brought in net immigration of almost 500 ,000 people.They say it's the highest 12 months to May on record.

In just January to May this year, so five months, we brought in almost 250 ,000 people.So when the government says they're committed to lowering immigration, well, when does this happen?Immigration is the highest it's ever been.People still continue to pour in.And the government's attitude is, oh, you know, we do want to cut it, but maybe not just yet, you know, but we will do it.Now, every single visa issued to any class of migrant comes out of the Department of Immigration.

If the minister responsible simply wanted to cut immigration, they could say, righto, this year, you've only got 250 ,000 visas total.How you allocate them, we'll leave that up to you, but no more than 250 ,000.Anyway, the year to May, May this year, so just a couple of months ago, just under 500 ,000 net migrants came into Australia.And the reason I say it's a Ponzi scheme, the Parliamentary Budget Office, which does independent costings of federal policies on both sides of politics, says that for every 40 ,000 extra migrants we bring in, The budget, this is the federal budget's bottom line, improves by $80 billion over 10 years.So you can see why Jim Charlesis so keen to keep high immigration, because otherwise his budget slides further into deficit.

Otherwise Australia's debt goes up because he's not running in spending.Now we are the ones, as people who live here permanently, who pay the price.You know, overcrowding on the roads, overcrowding in our hospitals, schools, you name it.High house prices, etc, etc, etc.All the result of very high levels of immigration.Now in Canada, over the past couple of years, they have wound immigration back to almost zero.

And it's had an impact that it's been more effective in stopping house price growth there than any other measure they've undertaken.They simply wound back the number of migrants that come in.Now, there are positives with immigration.As I said, the federal government makes a ton of money out of it.If you're Gerry Harvey, who owns Harvey Norman, you make a lot of money out of high immigration.Any business which serves customers quite likes having more customers.

But for those of us who deal with crowding, with potholes, with ambulances ramped up outside emergency departments, high immigration is not a fantastic thing.It is a cost in our community.Anyway, it's a Ponzi scheme.And when the federal government says, oh, well, we're going to wind it back, they are lying.Again, we'll speak to the Institute of Public Affairs after nine, but they've come up with figures that say in the 12 months to May this year, so the year to just two months ago, we had the highest net immigration on record, just under 500 ,000 people.I'll take calls on both sides of this issue.

There are positives associated with immigration.For example, our university sector makes a tonne of money out of educating foreign students, many of whom end up staying here in Australia.Again, if you run a restaurant, a cafe, any sort of customer facing business, you would prefer more customers than fewer.If you are someone who owns a lot of property, high immigration drives up property prices, no doubt about that.So there are positives, but there's plenty of negatives as well.And remember, governments keep saying we will wind back immigration, but they don't do anything about it.

Okay, so back to immigration levels.As I said, there are pluses and minuses, pros and cons, call them what you will about high immigration.The positives are it keeps the economy ticking over, it keeps the federal budget ticking over.The Parliamentary Budget Office has said that every 40 ,000 migrants adds $80 billion to Jim Chalmers' bottom line over a decade.So if we're bringing in almost 500 ,000 migrants this year, well that's 12 times 80 billion, you can do the sums, it's a lot of money.In fact, it's actually pretty close to a trillion dollars over 10 years.

If we saved all that up, we'd pay off the government debt.But there are negatives associated with high immigration, you know, crowded roads, long wait times in emergency departments, all those sorts of things.And again, there's the lying about the whole thing.The fact that the federal government keeps saying it is going to bring down immigration, but the numbers suggest the opposite is happening.and ex -guest Deputy Executive Director at the Institute of Public Affairs, Daniel Wild.Good morning.

Morning, Tom.I was quite shocked when I got your press release yesterday.I mean, I assumed, perhaps stupidly, that there was some honesty up in Canberra and that, you know, immigration levels in the current year were being cut, but that's not really happening, is it?

No, it's not.The official data comes out every month from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and it paints a picture that the numbers are still going up.As you've outlined, almost half a million came into our country over the 12 months to May 2026, which is the most recent data.that we have on record.Now, the reason this is a problem, as you've been discussing, is the government wants to keep bringing in more people for a few reasons.One is, yes, it makes the budget bottom line look a bit better.

Yes, it makes the economy look a bit bigger than it otherwise would be.You've got more people coming in, spending more money, and so on.But here's the real problem, Tom.The costof this are hidden.You mentioned congestion as one example.

How do you put a number on congestion?But there's also things like getting access to a doctor's appointment, getting into a local school, getting into your local childcare centre and things like this.So the costs of the migration program are diffused across our society.They're very hard to measure.The benefits are concentrated to a small group of people and organizations.So there's the government, but also universities.

Universities get a big benefit from foreign students.And so there's a lot of pressure to bring in more people, but not a lot of pressure to cut it back.

Yeah, and also the centrepiece of the budget a couple of months ago was, you know, we want to make housing more affordable for first home buyers, which looks in the short term as though that might be happening.But again, over the long term, if you're still bringing in half a million migrants a year, then the pressure on housing, both to buy a house or to rent a house, is immense.

Well, it's supply and demand, as you'd know better than anyone else.And the number one cause of the housing shortage on the demand side has been mass migration.Obviously, if you don't have the houses built before people come, then you're going to have higher prices.And this is something I don't get.Like, if you want to have a big migration program, OK, let's have that debate.I don't agree with it, but other people do.

Let's have the debate.But everybody agrees that let's get the infrastructure in first.So if you know as a government that you're going to issue half a million visas, then why don't you get the houses built first before people come into the country?

Because it's interesting, if you go back, it's almost 20 years now, when Kevin Rudd was elected, Kevin 07, I mean, he actually at least came out and said, I'm in favour of a big Australia.And, you know, he got people like Hugh Jackman and other celebrities to do things on whiteboards to suggest what we might do to achieve that.But I mean, at least he came out and said, I believe in a big Australia.Now he got shot down on that a few years later and his own party axed him.But, you know, You know, the government's own figures about how many houses we have to build a year.not meeting the targets we're missing it by around 20 % so they say they want to help first home buyers by changing the tax arrangements to property but then they keep bringing in half a million new people a year and the two things are at odds with each other.

Well they are at odds and you've also got this classic issue here which is the the differences between the federal and the state governments and The federal government gets all the benefits of migration, the state governments incur a lot of the costs, right, because health, education and a lot of issues related to housing are state government responsibilities.So you've got that issue that plays up with a lot of policies in our country.I also want to draw your attention to another point here, Tom, that's related to the house building, which is that Some people will say, well, okay, I understand that migrants that come need a house, but don't we need the skilled migrants to come to build the houses to start with?And I would say, well, yeah, that's true to an extent, but when you look at the numbers, and I was shocked when I saw this, when you actually look at what is counted as a skilled migrant or who is counted as a skilled migrant, less than 46 % of those who are issued with skilled visas are actually those who have skills.Now, why is that?Well, it's because if you're a doctor who comes in, you have a skilled visa.

Tick.Yep, got that.But if you're the spouse of the doctor, you're also counted as having a skilled requirement.Now, I'm not saying let's not have family reunification, because if you want skilled people to come, they've got to be able to bring their families.I've got that.But let's not pretend that they're skilled.

So when the government says it's running a skilled migration program, it's not.It's running a chain migration program based on family reunification.

Yeah, okay.Look, thank you, Daniel.Daniel Wild there from the Institute of Public Affairs.And again, it's just weird.As I said, the budget, oh, we're going to get rid of negative gearing and change capital gains tax.We've got to help first home buyers.

And that's, okay, that's, you can, we debated that.And I mean, I disagree with what they did primarily because they didn't say before the last election.that they would do it but anyway they've done it then they keep bringing in half a million people a year and that is not going to help first -home buyers it can't it's the opposite it will make life worse for first -home buyers these are figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics it is an independent organization it's funded by government but separate from government the Parliamentary Budget Office another of the Public Service, has said that every 40 ,000 extra migrants we bring in puts $80 billion a year, over a decade, onto the Federal Government's bottom line.So you can see why Jim Chalmers, in his efforts to try and produce a budget surplus, wants more migrants.And that's all fine, just be honest about it.