Voters reject Big Australia immigration flood

Last month, the The Australian Population Research Institute (TAPRI) released detailed polling showing that only 19% of respondents supported pre-COVID levels of immigration, with 70% wanting lower levels of immigration (of which 48% want significantly lower or zero immigration):

The overwhelming majority (69%) of Australians also do not believe that Australia needs more people:

A new survey published by Fairfax also shows that 58% of voters support lower levels of immigration than existed pre-pandemic, with only 7% wanting higher immigration:

The Resolve Political Monitor asked 1606 eligible voters their views on migration and other issues over six days to November 21. The results have a margin of error of 2.5 per cent.

The survey on migration said: “Permanent migration into Australia sat at around 160,000 people a year before COVID but fell to negligible levels in the last two years. There has been some debate about whether this is a good or bad thing as it can have consequences for the economy, families, skills, diversity and infrastructure.”

It then asked respondents if they wanted the migration intake to go back to the same level, restart at a lower level, restart at a higher level or whether they were unsure. It found 15 per cent were undecided…

“When people voice concerns about immigration we find it’s not generally about xenophobia or loss of identity. It’s more about the scale of immigration, and whether the economy, services and infrastructure are able to keep pace,” Resolve director Jim Reed said.

Sadly, voters’ wishes are being ignored entirely by our political leaders.

This week, the Morrison Government announced that Australia will re-open its international border to overseas students, skilled visa holders and working holiday makers, with Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews expecting that at least 200,000 migrant workers will arrive in Australia by July 2022.

This decision effectively brings forward the Intergenerational Report’s projection of 235,000 annual net overseas migrants from 2025-26 onwards.

Labor leader Anthony Albanese subsequently confirmed support for Big Australia immigration; albeit with a greater emphasis on permanent migration:

“We need a migration plan that is considered, that is in Australia’s national interest. And Australia, of course, has always been a nation where migrants have come to make a better life for themselves and their families,” [Anthony Albanese] said.

“What we need to avoid is the abuse that has occurred in some sectors whereby labour hire has been used to drive down wages and to drive down costs.

“Temporary migration has a role to play. But it shouldn’t be the starting point. The starting point should be support for permanent migration.”

The fake Greens want to destroy the environment by flooding the nation with temporary migrants:

Greens Senator Nick McKim introduced legislation into the Senate in October extending or restoring the visas of approved migrants stuck overseas.

The legislation would credit a temporary visa holder’s visa for the time they had lost due to the closure of Australia’s borders.

Whereas the NSW Government continues to push for an even bigger intake:

NSW stepped up the pressure on the federal government on Tuesday to increase the migrant intake to fill worker shortages, as strong labour demand saw job ads reach new highs in October.

NSW Treasurer Matt Kean said the federal government should be “more ambitious” with the number of migrants it allows to return.

Sadly, in the unrepresentative democracy of Australia, our politicians and media bend the knee to vested interests in the property, business and edu-migration lobbies rather than representing the wishes of the Australian people.

And with it, Australia’s politicians have locked in another decade of anaemic wage growth, worsening housing affordability, and declining living standards.

Unconventional Economist
Latest posts by Unconventional Economist (see all)


  1. It’s not so much what voters want as how much they want it. Many will have conflicting priorities – they may want higher house prices and cheaper restaurant meals but also prefer fewer people using public services. They can’t have both and must choose. Looks like both major parties know what side most voters will come down on.

    • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

      I think you’re giving the electorate way too much credit to be able to connect one thing to another.

    • And according to the current zeitgeist, suggesting any form of reduction for a migration program is straight out racist. From that point forward you are a right wing, nazi sympathising extremist and it will be on you to prove otherwise, which can only be achieved via a grovelling public apology and acknowledgement that you were wrong!

      The bigger your profile the more you risk, are you a professional with a largish social media network? Try putting a reasoned analysis on “why we need to reduce migration” on your linked-in…… dare to include any commentary or evidence regarding overseas social issues and see how far the gets you!

      • The so-called media is flooded with propaganda from those talking their book. We have the best government and opposition money can buy.

      • Jumping jack flash

        Nobody wants to be labelled a racialist for sure.

        It seems so simple to understand that in an economy like ours that produces nothing, and just relies on selling services and imported goods plus a margin, and primarily using debt to buy them, to raise wages in that environment you’re going to need to raise prices. Where else do the wages get paid from? The money-tree every business owner has growing in their backyards?

        Business owners aren’t going to be able to reduce their own wages either to pay their staff more, as some people may assume can happen, because those wages are already locked in at the current levels to service the debt they all have.

  2. Totes BeWokeMEMBER

    “where migrants have come to make a better life for themselves and their families,” …….avoid is the abuse that has occurred”

    Australia; where we vote for Labor to bend us over, while they look after everyone else.

  3. Gee, voters don’t get economics. Obviously, we must grow the population by 40% between now and 2050, which will create a much bigger economy with a much bigger carbon market, which then makes it easier to get to net zero. No seriously…

    • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

      Exactly. And only with mass immigration can we afford the necessary infrastructure, or afford the pension and Medicare for migrants as they age.

  4. The elites have found the perfect policy through mass immigration and they are not going to let it go. It is perfect for them as it increases the value of investable assets (residential property, commercial property, shares, etc.) and smashes real wage inflation. Win win for them. The longer this goes on, the less likely the great unwashed will ever join the elite.

    • darklydrawlMEMBER

      with the added benefits of appearing to care about others less fortunate (whilst not caring at all except for the points you mentioned above).

    • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

      That’s a positive step. If unions pressure Labor.

      That unions became big Australia pushers is just ridiculous. Members should have revolted.

    • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

      Sally…”2012, 377,000 Australians started an apprenticeship yet in 2020 that number had collapsed to just 133,500 thanks to drastic funding cuts.”

      No, it’s thanks to Labor and the unions being supporters of mass immigration, allowing LNP to cut funding.

      It’s important to get this chicken and egg argument right. LNP cannot gut tafes etc, if Labor and unions oppose mass immigration.

      • Agreed. Until the unions and Labor realise that mass immigration is being used as a weapon then they don’t stand a chance dealing with consequences. No use whinging about the government not investing when they don’t have to (or want to).

        • LNP would gut TAFE with or without immigration. Their problem is with public services.

          Immigration is nearly always just a multiplier of negative consequences, not a root cause.

  5. Gotti is bleating this morning we’ll be behind Canada and the UK for “the best”.

    Yeah scammy course doers and uber eats drivers.

  6. Election win is sitting there for the party that wants it with that (does Australia need more people) 69% “no” vote.

    • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

      It’d be near 100% if everyone connected the dots to realise their biggest issue ….(CC, environment, infrastructure, house prices, congestion, livability, open spaces, development, corruption, loss of opportunity, competition for employment, cost of living, falling wages, family breakdown, mental health, suicide, Medicare decline, inequality) is firmly attached, and 100% correlated to one core issue; MASS IMMIGRATION.

      • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

        SA, or any other anti immigration candidate in your electorate. If enough of us do it, it’s all over for big Australia.

        Then down the track, we make the elite surrender most of their wealth to help the people they’ve hurt.

          • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

            They are unknown, and Australians are too lazy to find them.

            It’s even too hard to vote under the line.

            Much easier to have to save for 10 years to NOT have enough for a house deposit. Much easier to sit in hours of traffic every day. Compete for wages and everything else.

            Australians are idiots and deserve to lose everything we’ve got.

  7. Jumping jack flash

    All those surveys do is prove we have systemic racism…
    You either crave the koolaid of “vibrancy”, or you’re labelled racist, and that’s another label you just don’t want these days.

    The need for constant immigration is a symptom of our debt-economy. There are a lot of important people who want and probably need it to happen, and they’re happy to manipulate the various bandwagons and those useful idiots riding on them to push their agenda.

    • 100%
      It is necessary for the ‘system’. It creates actual demand and, more importantly, a narrative to anchor the expectations of future gains from today’s ‘investment’ decisions.

  8. Ailart SuaMEMBER

    If anything needed a national plebiscite, this insane ‘big Australia’ issue does. The growing problem, if it’s left much longer, is that many migrants will be on the side of a ‘big Australia’, to better their chances of bringing in their extended families. Who, of course, will mostly be elderly people, putting further strain on our already stretched to the limit health system.

  9. The pollsters don’t understand the difference between Permanent immigration and Net overseas migration, and that despite closed borders last year, we still had 160,000 Permanent visas issued. The number they should have been surveying people about was the net ovesreas migration figure of around 240,000.

  10. The data analysis and presentation, like similar for climate science denial, would not pass year 12 statistics….. but one assumes the writer understands this?

    The meaningful data is ignored by media inc. MB, SPA etc. i.e. the OECD working age in ‘permanent’ populations etc. but parsing out the short term NOM temporary churn over; Australia like the UK and NZ uses, and obsesses about, the niche UNPD derived NOM net overseas migration figure that has inflated population since 2006, but not used by most nations?

    Looking at OECD working age, fertility etc. Australia is no different from Europe on population pyramids with increasing dependency ratios, but slightly larger working age like Canada etc. due to modest permanent migration over decades, followed by low fertility cohorts who will carry the can on budget stress (inc. need for pensions/health care; supplemented by net financial contributors caught in NOM) and environmental stress from climate change.

    Radical right libertarian trap for ageing fossils and baby boomers clogging up positive change by those conservatives pretending to be right on centrists for younger generations, not?

    Lookout, inc. house prices/values, the big mother lode of demographic and population change is coming as the pre WWII oldies clear out, and now post WWII baby boomer bubble starts popping its clogs en masse…..

    • Ironically the baby boomer bubble is largely the result of past waves of immigration. Also it’s your garbled word salads and mangling of statistics that wouldn’t rate a pass. Eg the change in NOM reporting in 2006 just makes it more realistic and in line with other countries. And in any case it’s the permanent intake which is the driver of population growth as they stay and have children here. You omit that our fertility rate is actually a lot higher than ‘most of Europe’, or that with 14% underutilisation we don’t actually need immigrants to boost participation. No mention of the 10’s of billions a year in infrastructure costs that come with our hyper levels of immigration either, or the futility of using immigration to counter an ageing population given that immigrants will age too. In fact it’s actually cheaper just to adapt.