The Coalition is expected in coming weeks to reveal the broad outlines of a policy platform centred around deep cuts to migrant numbers.
But which numbers are they talking about? Are they talking about net overseas migration? Or are they worried about the visa programs? If so, is it the permanent stream or the temporary?
Do they even know?
And is Labor really a party of “mass migration”?
In a debate that too often veers into emotive language and threatens to explode into outright racism, it’s worth getting the facts straight.
The Covid-19 pandemic migration backlash
Net overseas migration, or Nom, collapsed below zero during the Covid lockdowns, before rebounding to super-high levels as borders reopened.
It’s these historic post-Covid swings that people such as the Liberal backbencher Jacinta Nampijinpa Price are referring to when they accuse Labor of pursuing a “mass immigration agenda”.
More recently, Nom has been dropping sharply back towards its historical levels, and may even overcorrect on the way back down as the government tightens some visa rules and the number of departures picks up.
For all the wild and headline-grabbing swings in the net migration numbers through the Covid-19 health crisis – and as we have written before – the population is still not back to where it would have been were it not for the pandemic.
It’s also worth noting from a policy standpoint that you can’t set a target for Nom.
Net overseas migration is defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics as the number of arrivals who have stayed here for 12 out of the past 16 months, minus the number of resident people who left and stayed out of the country for 12 out of 16 months.
Put simply, you can’t prevent people leaving the country, so setting a Nom target is not within the government’s power.
Nor are the huge swings in net overseas migration down to policy changes made by the Albanese government.
In Australia, as in countries across the developed world, net overseas migration collapsed and then surged.
This is a global phenomenon driven by a once-in-a-century pandemic, not a sign of Labor, or any government, pursuing a “mass immigration” policy.
So what should we be discussing?
When we talk about migration the focus should be on the permanent and temporary visa programs, and whether the settings are right.
The permanent program is set by the government each year and is currently at 185,000 people a year. It’s been fairly steady at around those levels over the past decade or so, but it was closer to 100,000 in the early 2000s.
The intake is split about two-thirds skilled visas and one-third family visas.
There are also a further 20,000 humanitarian places.
As it’s capped, the permanent migration intake is stable and predictable.
(Just to note: it doesn’t mean that many people arrived in Australia on permanent visas, as typically about 60% go to people already living here.)
In contrast, the temporary visa intake is much more flexible, and has become an ever more dominant component of our migration program over the past 25 years.
In 2024-25, the home affairs department granted roughly 372,000 student visas, 321,000 working holiday visas and 386,000 temporary skilled worker visas.
There were millions more visas granted to visitors, transit workers and others, including approaching 1.9 million New Zealanders in the most recent financial year.
Alan Gamlen, the director of the ANU’s migration hub, says policy debates should be focusing on the permanent and, especially, the temporary migration programs.
“The permanent intake is fed by the temporary intake,” Gamlen says.
“Think of it as a funnel: people come in via the temporary program to respond to employer demand, and some of these make it down through the narrow chute to get the golden ticket of permanent residency.
“Others leave because they never intended to stay, or it doesn’t work out, and so forth. But there are a whole bunch of people who swill around at the top of that funnel.”
Restricting the temporary migration program cannot be done painlessly, as we have come to rely on it.
Gamlen says 84% of the increase in skilled migrant employment can be attributed to temporary migrants, with at least 44% of that current and former international students.
“In terms of the skilled migrant workforce, the temporary program is doing 84% of the work. Temporary migrants are making a huge contribution.”
So who’s responsible for rising temporary migration?
It’s clear that the temporary program has blown out to dominate our migration program over the past two decades.
A major review of the migration system in 2023 found that “our approach to migration planning hasn’t properly accounted for the impact of large and uncapped temporary migration on infrastructure”.
“We need a long-term horizon that supports stable and predictable population growth and allows more effective planning of infrastructure, housing and services to meet the needs of all Australian residents.”
But there is a deep irony when it comes to the Liberal party’s vehemently populist opposition to high migration: it has been policy decisions made by successive Coalition governments over the past 25 years that have driven the surge in temporary migration.
Research by Gamlen and his colleague Peter McDonald shows that since around the turn of the century, conservative governments have made universities dependent on international student fees, created the 457 temporary skilled migrant visa, expanded post-study work rights, and signed nearly 70% of Australia’s working holiday migration agreements.
In contrast, Labor’s policies when in power have tended to tighten immigration rules.
When in government, Labor has raised compliance and labour standards on students and skilled workers, cracked down on shonky education providers and visa hopping, and tightened English language tests.
“There is no foundation to claims that Labor has followed a policy of ‘Big Australia’,” they conclude.
In other words, says Gamlen, “it’s the temporary program which creates a lot of the issues that the Coalition are most worried about, and yet they are the party most in favour of the temporary migration”.
Which is the real ‘Big Australia’ party?
A study of parliamentarians’ voting records against their public pronouncements on migration reveal the underlying tension in parties of the left and right, says Gamlen.
“There’s a clear story that’s not unique to Australia, which is that the left and rightwing parties are internally divided on issues of immigration,” he says.
“So to keep their own party together they need to walk on both sides of the street; say one thing and do another.”
Leftwing parties, such as Labor, are “culturally open” to migration, but they are allied with unions which are “economically closed” and push for a more regulated labour market.
“They have to talk open about migration, and act closed.”
In contrast, the conservative side of politics in Australia has historically been split between a business-friendly elite that is keen on access to cheap and flexible labour, and a nationalist wing that is culturally closed to migration.
“They need to talk tough about ‘stopping the boats’. But then they follow up by removing the regulatory apparatus from the labour market, and allow temporary migration to flow as unfettered as possible.”
