Shadow immigration minister Paul Scarr issues pointed warning to Liberal colleagues

Shadow immigration minister Paul Scarr has issued a pointed and public warning to his Liberal colleagues not to use the immigration debate to “inflame emotion” a week after Andrew Hastie quit the front bench after an ugly split over the issue.

Mr Hastie held the senior Home Affairs portfolio but believed that leader Sussan Ley had ordered him to leave immigration policy development to Senator Scarr, who is seen as having more moderate views on the issue.

Migration was also at the core of the dispute that saw Jacinta Nampijinpa Price dumped from the shadow ministry in September.

Senator Scarr used his first major speech in the portfolio, to the National Migration Conference on Friday, to say that immigration policy must be in the national interest.

“But, more than that, the debate in relation to immigration policy must be conducted in a way which is also in our national interest,” he said.

“The debate with respect to Australia’s immigration policy must be had. It is an important debate. But the debate must be based on evidence and facts. It must be measured and considered.

“It must not seek to inflame emotion, but rather to engage in good faith with respect to the issues that need to be debated in our national interest – in our common interest.

“When we discuss immigration, we should always remember that there are countless stories just like (those of the Vietnamese-Australian community). We are a better country for each and every one of those stories.”

Assistant Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs Julian Hill used the same forum to warn that “shouting and lying is not a debate and nor are racist and offensive remarks” amid the toxic politics in the space.

“Contrary to ridiculous claims – including by actual nazis, most of the Liberal Party including some who are regurgitating extremist and racist talking points, and also many decent people sucked in by misinformation – Australia does not have or suffer from mass migration,” he said, while acknowledging Senator Scarr had rejected the “mass migration” claim.

“Paul is a decent person, but the problem is that the Liberal Party of today is not the Liberal Party of old.

“It’s not just a few extremists or populists – Hastie, Price and their cabal – blowing the dog whistle now, the Liberals are all taking the coward’s route.”

Much of the debate has revolved around net overseas migration, which skyrocketed post-pandemic once borders reopened and fewer people were leaving the country.

Mr Hill described the obsession with the NOM as “recent and rather peculiar” while Senator Scarr said it was “still materially higher” than long-term sustainable levels but shouldn’t be considered in isolation.

A key criticism levelled at the policy the Coalition under Peter Dutton took to the election was that it promised to cut immigration numbers without specifying how.

“When making proposals, it is simply not good enough to provide a number without explaining how you derived that number,” Senator Scarr said.

A final package had to answer detailed questions about visa categories, otherwise “you lose credibility”.

He promised all party colleagues would be able to have input to his “iterative and continuous” policy development.

“It will evolve throughout the term in response to internal and external feedback, emerging issues and ongoing engagement,” he said.

“We will take the time to get our immigration policy right. We will listen to the Australian community.”

Immigration levels and a commitment to net zero are the two flashpoints for the ongoing tensions in the Liberal party room, with the leadership trying to walk a narrow path on both to keep both moderates and the emerging group of more populist conservatives happy.

While there is little appetite for immediate leadership change, people on both ends of the party suspect a challenge could come within a year.

The question pondered by insiders is how long Ms Ley will be given to prove herself – or “fail on her own”.

Ms Ley was doing the best she could, “but some people will be determined to chuck bombs,” one MP said.

Conventional wisdom would give her the chance to deliver a budget reply next May, as a test of her policy development and political nous.

But one internal opponent predicted Ms Ley could be gone by as soon as Easter.