5 reasons for doing online learning for school students well
13 April 2020
​
The impossible task of decoding migration politics
10 February 2026
Towards the end of last year I was invited by a client to present to their leadership team on the topic of decoding Australia’s migration politics. My immediate reaction was oh pooh (or somewhat stronger synonym), how am I supposed to do that? I don't have a clue! That, of course, was all in my head, as I smiled and said that I would be happy to. The reason for my pessimism was multi-fold: there is no clear historical pattern to political parties’ openness to migration, public opinion jumps around for all sorts of reasons, political parties who are not at the extremities are reluctant to spell out their migration policy positions, and they sometimes appear duplicitous. So, naturally, this became the basis for my presentation and what I relay below. What I concluded was that there is a tension between playing to the views of the party faithful and what politicians actually believe, and there is the added tension that there are differences of views within political parties. More recently I have stumbled upon a theory that helps to make sense of these tensions. If you hang in until the end of this article, your reward will be that I will do my best to impart the wisdom of political scientists.
There is no clear historical pattern to political parties’ openness to migration
Hands up if you think that Labor is more open to immigration and that the Coalition is more closed? Or, in the spin that Labor might put on it, that it embraces multiculturalism and diversity, while the opposition prefers ‘people like us’? Or, in the other direction, that the Coalition is tough on migration, while Labor is weak? That is what politicians would have us think because, as I share under the discussion below on public opinion, it aligns with the views of the party faithful.
But is it true? To test it, let us take a look at permanent and temporary migration over time, starting with the former.
The chart immediately below tracks permanent migration outcomes over successive Labor and Coalition governments. The best I can conclude is that there is no discernible relationship. Permanent migration rose under a Hawke Government, as it introduced an approach that was non-discriminatory on the basis of race and positively discriminated on the basis of occupations. Permanent migration headed back down again as recessionary conditions caused a Keating Government to stomp on the brakes. Then rose and rose under a Howard Government with a honed focus on skilled migration and what that might mean for economic growth. Migration continued to rise in the Rudd/Gillard era. Until the Coalition stemmed the tide. A small thing called a pandemic meant that the Morrison Government was less welcoming of migrants, permanent and temporary. That is until Australia emerged out the other end and found it did not have sufficient local talent to fill roles as the economy rebounded. Then both permanent and temporary migrants were welcomed back with open arms. The outcome of the many enticements on the welcoming mat, however, were not realised until the Albanese Government took over the reins. His Government has been pulling hard on the reins for much of the time since.
So, in other words, permanent migration went up and down under Labor governments. And it went up and down under Coalition governments.
Migration program outcomes by governing party
Source: Department of Home Affairs (DHA) (2025) Historical Migration Statistics.
For temporary migration, absent the effect of border closures, the general direction of change has been up. If your eye has been drawn to the overwhelming number of Special Category visaholders in the chart below, that is for ‘people like us’. Or, more specifically, like me – Kiwis – who have consistently enjoyed an easy ride in. (By the way, the same applies if you are migrating in the other direction). However, that is not where the media or political focus has been when playing the blame game for unprecedented numbers. That has fallen heavily on the shoulders of international students. In a separate article shared here I fact check many of the claims been made in this relentless discourse. But I am allowing myself to get sidetracked. The main point to take away here is that who is in power is not a good explainer of increasing numbers of temporary visas granted.
​
Temporary visas granted under successive governments
Source: DHA (2025) Temporary visa holders in Australia.
Public opinion jumps around for all sorts of reasons
Immediately pre-COVID many thought that migration levels were ‘about right’. COVID reinforced this view, tipping it into a majority view (50 percent or above). It is only in the last two years that the public’s opinion has shifted. Last year the majority view was that the migration level was ‘too high’.
​
What do you think of the number of immigrants accepted into Australia at present?
Percent
Note: Break in 2017 reflects a change in approach to include an online surveys in addition the telephone survey.
Source: Scanlon Foundation (2025) Mapping Social Cohesion 2025.
That is a significant shift in a short space of time. Of course, opinions are relative to what the actual level of migration is. Or at least what the level of net overseas migration (NOM) is that is making the headlines. (Although not all will be making sense of what the ‘net’ means; that it is more than just arrivals, it is also departures). Nuances aside, pre-COVID NOM was trending up, but neither dramatically nor smoothly. COVID saw NOM plummet, and the majority public view was that was appropriate. When borders reopened, NOM surged primarily in response to pent-up demand. This stirred up anti-migration sentiments amongst many. Those sentiments have persisted despite the reality that since 2024 NOM has been in decline. Although you wouldn’t read about it in the papers.
Historical NOM
Thousands
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) various years.
This pattern of change has a name – the ‘whipsaw effect’. It has occurred only once before in Australia - during and after World War I when military troop movements disrupted migration. Following the correction, NOM returned to the trajectory previously travelled. That is what we are now seeing in Australia. And, I might add, around the world. The risk is that policies, introduced in response to public demands, may fuel an over-correction. In Canada, for instance, where Australia too frequently looks to for inspiration, its NOM has re-entered negative territory. Which bodes ill for a population that is ageing even faster than ours.
So aside from whipsaws giving the public whiplash, what else explains changes in the public’s opinions on migration?
Up until recent years it has been the unemployment situation. That is, when the unemployment rate was high, the dominant view expressed year after year, in the surveys undertaken by the Scanlon Foundation, was that migration was ‘too high’. This reflects a view that migrants take our jobs. However, as the chart below reveals, it has been a less reliable predictor in more recent years.
Unemployment and the view that migration is ‘too high’
I have previously hammered the reality that the public’s opinion could not be more wrong. So one more time can’t hurt. The reality is that as migration has gone up, the share of the population unemployed has come down. This is because migrants, particularly if they are skilled, are more likely to crowd in rather than crowd out jobs. By helping to grow the economy, they create jobs.
​
Unemployment vs Migration Program outcome
Sources: Migration Program Outcome – DHA (2025) Historical Migration Statistics. Unemployment to the Working Aged Population Ratio – ABS (2025) Labour Force Australia, Detailed, November.
But let’s not let facts get in the way of a good story. Jumping back one chart, in stark contrast to the past, in recent years when unemployment was low and one would expect the public to be more amenable to migration, the majority view was that migration was ‘too high’. So what is going on?
What is going on is that other perceived negative externalities have found their way into the public psyche, amply assisted by media and political commentary. High amongst these is the claim that migrants are the cause of Australia’s housing crisis. It has also been variously suggested that migrants depress wages and fuel inflation. In a separate article I debunk these and other migration myths. But I am typically preaching to the converted and a tiny following.
Concerningly, views on the broader benefits of migration and multiculturalism have turned a corner and are less positive than in the past. For instance, just a few years back in 2023, roughly four out of five people surveyed by the Scanlon Foundation were of the view that ‘accepting immigrants from many different countries makes Australia stronger’. In the latest survey the share had dropped to two thirds.
​
Attitudes to migration and multiculturalism
Share (%) of respondents who agree or strongly agree with the statement that …
Source: Scanlon Foundation (2025) Mapping Social Cohesion 2025.
On that last point, respondents to the same survey from Asia and Africa were more likely than ‘people like us’ to report being made to feel like that they have experienced racially motivated mistreatment.
The publics’ opinions influence their voting intentions
Regardless of what else is influencing the public’s opinions, how people vote says a lot about their general openness to migration. Data shared in the chart below, from surveys taken after each general election, provides a clear view of the differences, and how those differences have become more stark over recent times. While changing views are typically in the same direction, respondents’ party preferences impact starting points and susceptibility to change.
Attitudes towards migrants across political parties
Proportion who agreed the number of migrants allowed into Australia has ‘gone much too far’
For most of the period covered, the majority of One Nation supporters felt that the number of migrants allowed into Australia had ‘gone much too far’. Even in the immediate post-COVID period close to half of One Nation voters were of that opinion. That share more than doubled in the wake of the 2025 election.
This compares with: the more than two out of five Liberal and National supporters who felt the same way in 2025 versus less than one in ten post the previous election, the only modest increase in concern expressed by Labor supporters, and virtually no change by Greens supporters.
The rate of migration is a key issue that holds sway on future voting intentions. When a sample of the public were asked in a recent opinion poll which political party they judge would best handle migration, over a third identified One Nation. Less than a fifth placed their faith in the Coalition, and even fewer nominated Labor.
Which party would best handle the rate of migration?
Percent
Source: AFR/Redbridge Group/Accent research (various).
One Nation’s positively perceived migration management credentials is a part of the explanation of why it has enjoyed a meteoritic rise in the polls. In the latest poll, over a quarter of voters indicated that they intend to vote for One Nation at the next election. Conversely, the Coalition has been in free fall, now commanding less than a fifth of voter preferences. This puts One Nation in second place behind Labor, leading some to ask whether it is the real opposition.
​
First preference vote intentions
Percent
Source: AFR/Redbridge Group/Accent research (various).
The migration policy positions of political parties who are not at the extremes is unclear
Arguably, alongside shifting public sentiment, another big reason why a large chunk of the public have faith in One Nation’s ability to handle migration is because the Party has a stated migration policy position that leaves you in little doubt of its intentions to: cut the intake, remove the ability of temporary migrants including students to achieve residency through the ‘backdoor’, deport illegal migrants, and determine who will and will not be allowed in based on ideological and humanitarian grounds.
At the other extreme of the political spectrum, The Greens also have a clear statement of its immigration and refugees policy. It holds that Australia's cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity should be celebrated for greatly enriching our society and economy, and that this diversity is enhanced by the movement of people to Australia. The Party unabashedly promotes an approach that prioritises family reunion and humanitarian programs.
By way of contrast, it is the major parties at either side of centre who are more difficult to pin down.
The Liberal Party does not have a clearly stated unified migration policy position. There have, however, been a few loud voices from the right. Andrew Hastie lamented that “We’re starting to feel like strangers in our own home.” His urging is that we must put Australia first. He blames “unsustainable immigration” for creating pressure on our infrastructure, schools and hospitals, and for Australians being locked out of the housing market. He has called for NOM to be “taken down.” Jacinta Price famously accused the Government of enabling the migration of large numbers of people from the Indian community as they are likely to be left leaning. There was subsequently much back peddling from this statement.
Including from the Leader of the Opposition who has been at pains to stress that their tougher position of migration “has nothing to do with any migrant or migrant community” and that our multicultural character is one of the defining qualities of our great country.
Amid agitation from within her own Party to take the fight on migration to Labor (and away from One Nation), Sussan Ley has long promised she will release a policy position. While she has no plans to announce a target NOM, the intended direction of change is down, as she points to the same pressures as the right in her Party. Initial reports were that a policy would be announced pre-Christmas. Many are now holding their breath for an announcement this month.
The Labor Government has been active but (dare I say it?) duplicitous. On the one hand it has done a bunch of things designed to portray that it is getting tough on migration. To name a few, it has: tightened conditions for temporary skilled migration, introduced a raft of policy measures to rein in international student numbers, limited both the length of and eligibility for post study work rights, ended extensions to Pandemic Event visas, and introduced tighter integrity measures. On the other hand, more quietly, it has: left permanent migration unchanged at 185,000, eased pathways to permanency for Kiwis, introduced the Pacific Engagement Visa - a permanent visa allocated by lottery which is not included in the Migration Program, raised the planning level for international students by 25,000 for 2026 to 295,000, and allowed for the over-enrolment of international students under a Ministerial Direction (MD115). Its behaviours would tend to suggest a desire to be seen to be responsive to public opinion while at the same time being alert to the benefits of migration.
The wisdom of political scientists
I promised that if you stick it out until the end I would share with you the wisdom of political scientists. Special credit and thanks is owned to Alan Gamlen and Peter McDonald of the ANU (Australia National University) Migration Hub, whose sharing of this wisdom in one of the Hub’s many instructive Insights led to my ‘ah ha!’ moment. As in: ‘ah ha – other than at the extremes, it is not possible to predict the favoured approach to migration policy simply by the colour of the political party’. Hence why this article is titled ‘The impossible task of decoding Australia’s migration politics’, as distinct from the title I was initially challenged to present on which omitted the italicised words. The following is unashamedly adapted from the insights of the ANU academics.
The sometimes called ‘strange bedfellows’ theory argues that the divide is not just between left and right, but between whether factions of parties are open or closed to migration and globalisation. The matrix below provides a basis for categorisation. On the left, the open faction is a socially liberal intelligentsia that supports migration as a matter of rights and diversity. The policy of The Greens slots neatly into this quadrant. This contrasts with the right, closed faction - the nationalist movement - which resists migration as a driver of cultural change. One Nation’s policy is an easy fit in this quadrant.
The remaining quadrants are the left, closed faction - the trade union movement which opposes migration as a force for labour market deregulation, and the right, open faction - the economically liberal business elite which supports migration for labour market flexibility.
​
The strange-bedfellows theory of immigration policy
While One Nation and The Greens are easy to pigeonhole, the Labor, Liberal and the National parties are not. As Labor sits towards the left of the political spectrum, the publics’ presumption is that it is open to migration. But, as we have just seen, history has proved that is not always the case. And over the last few years it has made some publicly ‘tough’ decisions, and some less public decisions to ease pathways. It will be struggling with the tension between the public's views, and the labour market and social benefits of migration. This will play out differently for different politicians within the party and where each sits in the matrix. It will not be easy being the Minister for Migration and Citizenship nor the Prime Minister.
Similarly, it will not be easy being the Leader of the Opposition. As the Liberal Party sits towards the right end of the political spectrum, the public’s presumption is that it is more closed to migration. But again history has proved this also to be not always be true. Coalition governments have consciously facilitated growth through migration. While some of the more vocal elements of the Liberal Party are eager to play to the currently dominant public opinion, others will be attuned to the economic and other benefits of migration. The Leader herself has highlighted how multiculturalism has enriched society. But, in the next breath, played to the publicly perceived pressures of migration. Her behaviours suggest that she is striving to find some middle ground. She may also be questioning what there is to be gained by occupying the same space as One Nation. It likely played on her mind when One Nation recently offered itself as a bedfellow. Three in a bed may make for very strange bedfellows indeed!
My parting words of advice to the politicians and political parties who are not at the extremes is: rather than playing to public perceptions they should inform and shape them.
​
​
​
​
​
Mary Clarke
Principal
DXP Consulting
​​
M: +61 401 088 571