The Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018 proposes to hold a compulsory, in-person national vote alongside the next general election, asking Australians whether the current rate of immigration is too high. It uses much of the referendum framework—compulsory voting, broadcast rules, scrutineers and counting procedures—but the result is non-binding and determined by a simple majority.
This Bill amends the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 and the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (among others) to create a legislative framework for a plebiscite on Australia’s future migration level. Under clause 5, the Governor-General issues a writ alongside the next general election, posing the question: “From December 2005 to December 2016 Australia’s population grew from 20.5 million to 24.4 million; 62% of this growth was from net overseas migration. Do you think the current rate of immigration to Australia is too high?” Clause 6 specifies that the outcome is decided by a simple majority of formal votes. The Bill extends compulsory voting, pre-poll, postal and absent voting, appoints functions to the Australian Electoral Commission, and adapts referendum offences, scrutineer appointments, recount and dispute procedures so that only members of the federal Parliament may initiate them. It also applies and modifies broadcasting blackout periods and reasonable-opportunity rules under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the SBS Act. Schedule 1 replaces the standard referendum writ and ballot-paper forms with versions tailored to the plebiscite.
By inviting Australians to register their views directly on migration levels, the Bill deepens civic engagement and ensures that immigration policy is informed by public sentiment. A national plebiscite provides a clear, transparent signal to lawmakers about community concerns without imposing legal changes; it strengthens the accountability of politicians to their constituents rather than to special interests.
The plebiscite framework applies established electoral safeguards—compulsory voting, formal ballot standards, scrutineers and recount procedures—thereby preserving integrity and public confidence in the result. It also compels broadcasters to allocate fair opportunities to both sides and imposes a brief advertising blackout, which promotes an informed debate free of last-minute noise. Overall, this targeted consultation mechanism can help tailor migration policy to match Australia’s capacity for infrastructure, housing and services, avoiding the drawbacks of top-down decision-making [Judgment].
While public input is valuable, a simple yes/no plebiscite grossly oversimplifies the complexities of migration policy, reducing nuanced decisions on skill shortages, humanitarian obligations and regional settlement to a binary choice. Complex policy trade-offs are ill-suited to the referendum model and risk misleading voters [Judgment].
Moreover, the plebiscite may inflame xenophobic rhetoric and amplify minority fears, undermining Australia’s commitment to non-discrimination. Allowing a major political campaign around “too high” immigration could stigmatise communities and fuel social division. Given the result is non-binding, the benefits are marginal compared to the considerable cost and the danger of legitimising simplistic, majoritarian appeals on sensitive issues.
2018-08-15
Senate
Before Senate
HANSON, Sen Pauline
Unspecified
Democratic Institutions, Immigration, Media / Advertising