Turnbull at odds with three ministers over cuts to migration

The Prime Minister was at odds last night with the accounts of three ministers involved in a meeting about migrant numbers.

Malcolm Turnbull at the Commonwealth Games swimming last night. Picture: Getty Images

Malcolm Turnbull was at odds last night with the accounts of three ministers involved in a meeting that considered reducing Australia’s immigration intake after issuing a furious denial of a report on the talks in The Australian.

Three ministers present in a meeting last year have confirmed Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton proposed a cut to the immigration rate but it was knocked back.

It is understood the proposed cut was 20,000 — taking the permanent migration rate from 190,000 to 170,000.

On one minister’s account, the meeting was held in Sydney in early 2017 when Mr Dutton raised the issue of the cut in front of other ministers.

The Australian has also been told that in March 2017 there was a joint meeting of the expenditure review committee and the national security committee in Sydney where the question of whether to stay with the 190,000 target was due to be debated.

The Prime Minister attacked The Australian yesterday when asked at a press conference whether Mr Dutton had canvassed lowering the immigration rate, saying: “The story on the front page of — I’m so glad you asked that — the story on the front page of The Australian today about migration and the cabinet is completely untrue. It’s false. It’s completely untrue.”

Asked whether the possibility of a migration cut was canvassed or whether the article was untrue, Mr Turnbull said: “The article, the claim in the article, is false, full stop. OK? Full stop, it’s false and the journalist concerned should, you know, consider the reliability of his sources.”

The Australian has not reported that the discussion was held in cabinet or in a cabinet committee.

A spokesman for the Prime Minister, when specifically asked last night whether Mr Dutton had canvassed a cut in the immigration rate with him or whether any other minister or government staff member had canvassed such a cut, said: “There has never been a proposal to cabinet or any cabinet subcommittee to reduce the ceiling of the skilled migration program from 190,000.”

The original report was backed by SkyNews reports yesterday.

Sky reported that there were several “policy development meetings” where a cut of 20,000 was discussed in 2016 and 2017 and that the option was discussed with ministers by Mr Dutton then. Sky also reported the Prime Minister was briefed on the proposal. “This wasn’t a quickfire idea, discussion and rejection,” one source told Sky.

“In 2016, a spectrum of policy issues were canvassed. This (20,000) reduction of the migration program was one of them.

“Various policies were canvassed through the department and there was the usual consultation with other departments.

“Some policies we continued with, some died off due to either lack of interest or being too difficult, but the reduction of the program stayed the course and was around for a long time before it was axed due to cost and intrapartisan politics.

“The proposal was knocked back ultimately because it would have negatively affected the budget.”

Mr Turnbull’s comments came after Liberal deputy leader and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop told Sky: “I am not aware of any such proposal. I am a member of the cabinet, I am a member of the National Security Committee and I don’t recall that proposal at all so I can only assume that the story is not true. It is not a target, 190,000. It is in fact a ceiling so we can take as many migrants as we believe is appropriate in Australia’s national interest to drive economic growth and social cohesion in this country.”

Earlier yesterday, Mr Dutton issued a statement on his Twitter account in which he did not deny the report but said: “I have made it clear over recent weeks that I support the current level of migration. As the PM and I have said repeatedly, our migration program acts in the national interest by maintaining the same proportions of skilled and unskilled entrants as previous Coalition governments.”