Article:
Treasurer Jim Chalmers has expressed strong criticism of Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s proposed migration cuts, labeling it as an “unhinged and risky rant.” In his budget reply speech, Peter Dutton pledged to reduce the number of permanent visas granted in the next two years to 140,000 if elected. This move would significantly lower the current permanent migration cap of 185,000, set by the government, down from 190,000 the previous year. Dutton outlined a gradual increase in the cap to 150,000 in year three and 160,000 in year four, encompassing family, humanitarian, and skilled visas.
However, criticism of this stance has emerged from various corners. Economists and property industry figures have expressed reservations about Dutton’s plan to slash migration numbers and ban foreign buyers from the housing market for two years. They argue that this strategy is unlikely to have a substantial impact on housing supply and could potentially harm the nation’s economic prosperity. While acknowledging that foreign buyers make up only a small portion of the housing market, Dutton remained steadfast in asserting that the measure would increase supply, despite concerns raised about its effectiveness in addressing the housing crisis.
Additionally, Peter Dutton faced scrutiny over his migration policy during a breakfast TV appearance, where his inability to answer a straightforward question was notable. When questioned about the number of foreigners who had purchased homes in Australia in the previous two years, Dutton struggled to provide a response. This spotlight on his new “Australia-first” migration policy came as he attempted to dispel Labor’s characterization of him as the “Darth Vader of Australian politics,” accused of leveraging immigration to secure electoral success.
In summary, Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ critique of Peter Dutton’s migration cuts, concerns raised by economists and industry experts about the impact of the ban on foreign buyers from the housing market, and Dutton’s stumble in addressing questions related to his migration policy have all contributed to the ongoing debate and scrutiny of these proposed changes. With the election looming, the discussion around migration and housing policy is likely to remain at the forefront of the political agenda.
