TOM CONNELL, HOST: The Coalition says it will tackle rorts in the student visa system to help bring migration levels down. If elected, the Opposition will target 80,000 people who are on at least their third visa by raising their application fees. The Department of Home Affairs has revealed there are currently 132 students living in Australia on their tenth student visa and 156 on their ninth. The Opposition says it will not slash the intake of international students at regional universities in the same way it intends to with the Top Eight. Right - let's start with this issue. Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, Patrick Gorman and Former Liberal MP Jason Falinski with me. Patrick, beginning with you. I mean, if we look at the net overseas migration, that it got to more than half a million in a single year - has that meant, this has become a really tricky issue, that Australians have lost faith in the, I guess, the orderliness of our migration system?
PATRICK GORMAN, ASSISTANT MINISTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER AND ASSISTANT MINISTER FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE: Well, I think, Tom, as you would know, that we have been doing work for a period of time to restore order to a broken migration system that we inherited from the Coalition, including from former Minister Dutton. We've been doing that work, indeed, when it comes to student visas and cracking down, on making sure that students who come here are here with a legitimate study purpose with a legitimate visa for a limited amount of time - we've been doing that work, we outlined a lot of that work almost a year ago. But what I think is really annoying for anyone who's looking at this debate from afar about what Mr. Dutton and the Coalition are doing, is there's not a single costing. There's not a single piece of economic modelling. And I think for people like Jason, who engage in a serious policy debate, when we are less than a year from an election, people deserve to see one costed policy, some level of economic modelling. We're not even getting the charade we used to get from Tony Abbott, where he'd have Liberal-aligned accountancy firms do his economic modelling for him. He has nothing. So it's impossible to respond to Mr. Dutton's policy ideas.
CONNELL: Okay.
GORMAN: When there is absolutely no independent costings of what he's proposing, there is no analysis from any independent firms of the economic impact that it will have. And he's also, effectively as I said to you, Tom, he's pretending that he was never the Minister in charge of this in the first place, which we all know is not true.
CONNELL: Well, there's a business idea, Jason, maybe you get a - as a former Liberal - start up an accountancy firm. Do you think though that, Peter, that needs to be up front? And you can say, 'alright, economic growth will be lower, because there are fewer people coming,' but it doesn't change the way people feel, because it's about growth, you know, GDP per capita? Should he be upfront in that manner?
JASON FALINSKI, FORMER LIBERAL MP: Tom, I don't, I'm not entirely sure I understand your question. But are you suggesting that because we've had so many migrants, they've driven economic growth, but on a per capita basis, Australians have gone backwards? That that's just a matter of fact, that's what happened. And what -
CONNELL: Yeah, but what I'm saying is, if you have 200,000 fewer people come to the country, the economy won't grow by as much. So you can say, 'yes, we're upfront with that. But here's what it actually means to Australians because of a GDP per capita measure.'
FALINSKI: Yeah, look, I think, I think the point you make is a good one, or the question you asked, rather, is a good one. There are, of course, other measures that the Coalition will be announcing before the election, which will have material effect on, you know, what the people who are coming to the country can actually contribute towards our economy. So I think the biggest issue in technical terms, is that we've had productivity fall through the floor. Over the last few years, there was a COVID element to that, but it simply hasn't recovered. And we haven't really seen large productivity growth since the mining boom of 2007-2008. And what that's creating in Australia is that even though people's wages are going up, their real wages are going down. And adding more people to that problem is just throwing more fuel on the fire. So you have to deal with the underlying issues.
GORMAN: Tom, I know Jason loves an economic fact, so, can I throw one in?
CONNELL: Quick response, Patrick, yeah, sure.
GORMAN: Since Labor elected: productivity up. Since Labor elected: real wages growth up. Now, I think even in Jason's response, he pointed out the fact that there hadn't had productivity growth since the last time you had a Labor government in power. We saw an absolute ignoring of the productivity challenges in our economy. And Jason would know that all of the data shows that productivity is up under this government from where it was under the Morrison-Turnbull-Abbott years.
FALINSKI: So, so, Tom, I'm not entirely sure what figures Patrick's referring to. But the OECD released figures showing that Australia's real wages dropped the most of any member nation of the OECD. I think our real wages dropped by 11%. The second largest drop was New Zealand at five and a half percent. So we have Australians have faced a very hard time and I think when you ask the question, 'are you better off now than you were two years ago?' Most most people would answer no. They're clearly -
CONNELL: Yeah, well I heard the Coalition trot out the Ronald Reagan line. I suspect that if it's getting out to you, Jason, it's gonna be big. We'll hear it a lot between now and the next election. Quick - next topic. ICC, the International Criminal Court and what they decided to do. Patrick Gorman, we heard the Prime Minister say, I won't comment on court proceedings. He's commented on the Julian Assange case. What's the difference?
GORMAN: Tom, I've lost you. But I love being on this programme, so I'll just sit and smile politely.
CONNELL: Okay, that's - alright. I'm sure you have lost me.
FALINSKI: I can answer Pat's question.
CONNELL: Oh, yeah, nah great! That'd be good. Jason - you've, you've thrown me now. Okay. This was what I was gonna ask you on this, Jason: is it too drastic, some of the calls to just leave the ICC? I mean, doesn't that imply if we don't agree with everything they do, we're out. And that doesn't really fit in with being part of an independent decision making body?
FALINSKI: Yeah, look, I think that's that's a really good point, Tom, which is, we never expected the ICC to always rule in our favour always do things that we agreed with. But what they did this week is really, really dangerous. And the reason it's dangerous is putting everything aside, that what they've essentially done is equated a democratic nation state with a terrorist group. And I understand, and I think a lot of other people understand, that it is a narrative that resonates very well in the Middle East. Because it basically says to people who find themselves in situations with limited economic opportunities, that it's not their fault. And it's not the fault of their leaders in their countries, but rather, it's the fault of the West, and the West's allies, particularly Israel, who have sought to systematically oppress them or deny them the same economic opportunities that other citizens have. This is a dangerous thing for them to have done. But look, you know, this, all of this was warned about. Daryl Williams, who was the Attorney-General, when this was signed under the Howard Government. Andrew Thomson, who was the Member for Wentworth at the time, warned that this would be a probable outcome of the ICC. So I think it's not unfair for us to think about reviewing our membership.
CONNELL: Alright, well, we're not gonna go back to that Pat, we lost you. It was our fault. We apologise, in case anyone thinks that you were ducking a question - you never do that, you always front up. Let me give this one to you, then, to end with. Look, we're probably a year out from the campaign. But who knows? You can tell us when the when the panel ends, how far away we really are. But awkward, funny, pick whatever you want, but really memorable campaign moment. What's one that comes to mind for you, Pat?
GORMAN: The one that my team have never forgiven me for was: I got into a bin full of rubbish to celebrate something we'd done for a community group called 'Inglewood on Beaufort.' So there's a photo that still haunts me on the Internet of me standing in a big bin. And I'm sure Jason is going to print up some stickers for the Liberal Party that says 'Dump Patrick Gorman.' So, I look forward to that. And I guess the other one that was both an embarrassing joy was at one point during the last campaign, I did find myself wearing a 'For the Beaches: Jason Falinski' hat, which is the probably one of the most awkward and probably politically-risky things I've ever done in a campaign.
FALINSKI: I still have your, I still have your beer holder that you sent me, Pat. So, it's still getting used in the Falinski household as we speak.
GORMAN: Cheers to that!
FALINSKI: Indeed. But, Tom my my favourite one is not one of mine, but it's a Malcolm Turnbull story. When he was running for Wentworth in 2004, someone wrote to him and said, 'you know, Malcolm Turnbull, as a Member of the Australian Communist Party, I consider you to be a proto-fascist, so I won't be voting for you.' To which, Malcolm replied, 'well, the fascists and the communists have a lot in common, and given that the communists won't be running a candidate in Wentworth, would you consider voting for me anyhow?'
CONNELL: You know, that's a great exercise in never giving up a vote isn't it? Could have been another missive. I'll tell you quickly mine because I was on the campaign trail, not as a candidate, as a journalist, and someone accused me of being Kristina Keneally's son and said I shouldn't have been covering it because I was biased, so I'm not sure why. Just to clarify: Kristina Keneally is not my mother. But there you go. Alright, Patrick, Jason, we have all that to look forward to because it's closer than we realise, isn't the campaign Pat? When is it? What month? Do you want to blink twice if it's going to be this year?
GORMAN: Look, it'll be within the next year, Tom. We know -
CONNELL: Oh, yeah. Great. Alright.
GORMAN: That's very exciting. It means we've got a whole year to talk about when it will be. It will fill hours and hours of this program and others -
CONNELL: Oh a whole year? Alright, a whole year. It's going full term. It's guaranteed. You heard it from Patrick Gorman. We're gonna go - we're gonna leave that. Thank you, Pat, Jason - talk next week.