A plebiscite on Big Australia would be far more popular than Dutton’s dual citizenship referendum

Voters have never been asked what they think about bringing in hundreds of thousands of people a year to pump up GDP and fill the coffers of the tertiary education sector, writes JAMES MORROW.

If space aliens landed in Canberra tomorrow, they would immediately report back to their home planet that the occasional ritual earthlings call “an election” is at heart a game where two teams compete to spend other peoples’ money in the most ludicrous fashion possible.

And at first glance, Labor would seem to be well ahead in this contest.

Not only have they promised an average of something like $10 billion a month in new spending since the start of the year, but under Anthony Albanese they have looked the other way as millions have gone out the door for silly academic games like a projects to (no joke) subvert souvenir tea towels.

Yet the Coalition seems more than happy to play catch-up.

Seeking to avoid slash and burn scare campaigns, they weeks ago matched Labor’s $8.5 billion bulk billing promise, chucking in an extra half-billion for good measure.

And now the opposition has put on the table – though not committed to – a constitutional referendum to let the government strip citizenship from dual nationals convicted of terror or other offences.

Labor has used immigration as a tool to win more votes from ethnic communities. Picture: Colin Murty

Given that the failed Voice referendum cost the taxpayer around $500 million, this is an odd flex for the side of politics that has committed to government waste.

Particularly as the number of dual nationals convicted of terrorism would be vanishingly small.

As an actual proposal, it’s a non-starter, just a way to get voters thinking about who has the stronger credentials on security and borders.

The failed Voice referendum cost the taxpayer around $500 million. Picture: Jenny Evans/Getty Images

But it is also a deflection, because it avoids putting any real policy about either on the table.

If the opposition leader really did want to send voters back to the polls on anything, instead of a referendum on terrorist dual nationals, perhaps he should consider a plebiscite on the much broader question of immigration.

Put it to the people: A yes/no question of whether to cap net overseas migration at one half of one per cent of the population per annum.

With a population just edging 27 million that would mean dialling back net overseas migration to something like 135,000 per year from around half a million today.

Even though plebiscites are neither free (the 2017 gay marriage postal poll cost about $160 million) nor hold the force of law, giving people a say on Big Australia would be enormously politically popular.

Because, for a good two decades now, voters have never really been asked what they think about bringing in hundreds of thousands of people a year to pump up GDP and fill the coffers of the tertiary education sector – a sector that now encompasses everything from sandstone universities to dodgy factory unit “training colleges”.

Last week a clip from the ABC’s Q&A went viral after Central Coast local Morgan Cox told of being pushed with his family to the brink of homelessness because of housing market pressure driven in no small part by migrants.

Cox explained how he’d already been forced out of Sydney and asked, “is the government going to cut immigration to match housing availability, or are we just going to keep going until every regular working Australian is homeless?”

The question hit home and Cox got a strong round of applause from an ABC crowd you would generally expect to be all in on migration, diversity, and multiculturalism.

Labor’s health minister Mark Butler gave an answer that could politely be summed up as waffle, so Cox was allowed a follow-up.

“As I understand it, the government makes the laws and decides who comes in,” Cox said.

“So if you’ve got 2.5 million people coming in a few years, surely, surely you can say to them, No, we don’t have enough houses for you?”

Migration has been part of the reason why house prices have jumped through the roof in recent years. Picture: Sam Ruttyn

Again, more applause but little again in the way of answers (including from former Liberal NSW Treasurer turned Climate Authority chair Matt Kean).

Cox’s anecdote is not unique, and while increasing housing supply is important the question of demand is becoming increasingly urgent – particularly as more people means more pressure not just on the rental market but on infrastructure, services and what is rather gingerly called, “social cohesion”.

In December last year the Australian Population Research Institute found strong support for lowering migration numbers, with 27 per cent preferring a “net zero” option where there were only enough arrivals to balance out departures.

The same survey found that a majority also thought the government should take into account migrants’ ability to fit in.

The answer to a question about kicking out terrorists and serious criminals should be a no-brainer.

But asking people who and how many they want to let in is tricky, perhaps more tricky than either side of politics cares to reckon with.

Far easier to just reach for the chequebook.

Originally published as A plebiscite on Big Australia would be far more popular than Dutton’s dual citizenship referendum