It’s a Sunday and I can’t finish the lawn with a bit of moisture about. Someone flips an article by Abul Rizvi into play, and foolishly I read it. Doc Rizvi is slagging off the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) for a release about immigration. I find myself reading both the IPA release and the Doc’s piece.
It isn’t even close………
Let us look at Rizvi in action. The pre-match weigh-in gets heated.
Institute of Public Affairs continues to mislead on immigration levels
By Abul Rizvi | 14 November 2025, 11:00am
Murdoch media and the IPA are again distorting migration data to fuel anti-immigration fearmongering ahead of upcoming rallies. Dr Abul Rizvi reports.
That’s a pretty standard hostile jibe in this day and age. Rizvi is telling anyone reading his piece that the IPA is bullshitting us. He throws some shadow jabs as security steps in. It could be time for a frenzy. Don King is here somewhere.
At that point, this ex-journalist does what many don’t. He reads the IPA piece. Even more, in something that may come as a shock to younger readers, who finished secondary school in the era after analysis of an argument ceased to be part of the English curriculum, he considers what the IPA is presenting to its readers and examines the data that supports that contention. He concludes by making up his mind and considering what Doc Rizvi is growling at and what he is chewing over.
He goes back to Doc Rizvi, to see how he comes out for the starting bell.
THE INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS (IPA), aided and abetted by the Murdoch press, has again misled the public on immigration levels by trying to portray Net Permanent and Long-term (NPLT) movements for the nine months to end September 2025 (415,760) as being virtually the same as net migration over the same period.
Tasselled boots and a spirited touch of the gloves with another mention of Uncle Rupert’s minions, but the line he is taking is NPLT and the relationship this has to migration.
At that point, a reference to the IPA presser is worth a look. Worth noting is that their press release is 514 words, and that of that, 161 words—nearly a third of the release, though admittedly the final third – is:-
While ‘net permanent and long-term arrivals’ and ‘net overseas migration’ differ slightly, they remain closely related measures. The latter, in effect, is an adjustment to the former to incorporate the 12/16 rule, whereby an arrival counts as an overseas migrant arrival if the person stays in Australia for 12 of the following 16 months. Conversely, a departure is counted as a case of expatriation if the individual lives overseas for 12 of the following 16 months. Determination as to whether a person makes a permanent or long-term journey into Australia does not incorporate the 12/16 rule.
Since measuring net overseas migration necessarily lags behind permanent and long-term movement accounting, net permanent and long-term arrivals can act as a proxy to estimate net overseas migration. The Treasury’s Centre for Population states in its handbook, Fundamentals of migration in Australia: Migration concepts and measurement, that the net permanent and long-term arrivals measure is “an early indicator of future migration flows”.
I find myself thinking that, no matter what the flaws in their piece are, the IPA has gone a long way to pointing out that NPLT is not identical to migration, but is a quite solid indicator of migration. From there it is no great conceptual leap to pose the question ‘what is Rizvi on about?’
So it’s back to Abul for more, with the score at 1 – 0 in favour of the IPA.
It’s a minor affair and he comes out fighting again.
This is likely targeting the next set of anti-immigration rallies due later this month, as well as the ongoing tensions in the Coalition on immigration policy. The IPA is likely a strong supporter of Andrew Hastie’s dog whistling on immigration.
As a former newsroom editor who has explained to journalists why he wasn’t broadcasting or printing their output, two servings of ‘likely’ in the one stanza isn’t a good look. Any journalist bringing me one would have lots of explaining to do. I may be a bit old fashioned but ‘is’ or ‘isn’t’ is what I like to see, or maybe ‘will’ or ‘won’t’ or ‘can’ or ‘can’t’.
Likely would be at the same end of the spectrum as ‘remains to be seen’. IPA up 3 – 0 there.
The Doc may have more substance with the idea that the next set of anti-immigration rallies may be receptive to the line of thinking the IPA espouses. Given a very large amount of evidence that the majority of Australians have very significant concerns about the volume of immigration into Australia and, indeed, the use of student visas as a vehicle for contributing to the immigration volume, one would have to assume that there will be very significant interest in any data presented about immigration volumes. That brings the IPA to 4 – 0.
His second ‘likely’ is wheeled out to a linked piece in the Canberra Times referencing his comments about Andrew Hastie ‘Dog whistling’ with an observation that Australians feel like strangers in their own home. A self-referencing author of pieces behind paywalls ships another hit to make the IPA 5 – 0.
At that point it would be worth wondering about a nation where 1 in every 3 people was born somewhere else, and the population has grown far faster than any other developed nation in the last 20 years, through immigration and not procreation, and that large numbers of people have concerns about immigration volumes, whether that population may feel that things are a touch strange in their suburbs and towns, let alone their cities, and that their politicians are legendarily reluctant to talk about immigration.
In that context the issue may not be one of the IPA supporting Andrew Hastie, but of Andrew Hastie espousing views consistent with a large number of Australians, at least with regard to immigration volumes.
Australia is the biggest per capita importer of people in the OECD
A politician talking about immigration is pretty noteworthy, and one referencing the people of Australia and their views even more so. But Doc Rizvi has missed that opportunity to bring his public service expertise to bear. Maybe he was gasping with indignation about the one-third of the IPA presser articulating a caveat on the data they use. Either way, he is on the receiving end of an 8-0 deficit at this stage of his piece.
Club management would be preparing announcements about having ‘full confidence’ in the coach and denying any suggestion of looking for a new one.
Abul comes back for more but face-plants by rejuvenating a point he has already used to expose himself as an abject charlatan. The situation is becoming increasingly unpleasant, prompting adults to shield children’s eyes.
Right at the end of its press release, where the reader is unlikely to go, the IPA acknowledges:
‘While “net permanent and long-term arrivals” and “net overseas migration” differ slightly, they remain closely related measures.’
The IPA would have included this after being caught out previously misusing NPLT data
Here’s the chart Doc wants, NPLT arrivals and NOM stretching back to the 1980s
That ‘right at the end’ Abul refers to is the final third of the IPA release. That italicised line is 100% factual – NPLT is closely related to NOM and is a very reliable leading indicator in the lag between the two data sets.
His reference to the IPA being ‘caught out’ was the same as the one Leith Van Onselen wrote a piece about weeks ago here at Macrobusiness—after an emailed warning regarding data usage, which was perfectly factual, in line with the ABS use of the NPLT data, and a previous Centre for Population acknowledgement that the NPLT was a leading indicator of NOM, and where they refused to address questions Leith raised about the emailed warning. Abul is down 11 – 0, and his legs have gone to peanut butter, and spectators are leaving and booing.
Atta boy Doc!
Doc gets up and comes again, only to power face-first into an oncoming lump of undeniable factuality again.
But the key message from the author of the IPA press release, Daniel Wild, is that:
‘Elevated net permanent and long-term arrival numbers have now become a new norm, with the indicator of migration patterns showing the Federal Government’s “Big Australia” policy is well and truly in full flight.’
There are now grave concerns for his health as he wheels out and presents a perfectly factual line from the IPA. Net Permanent and Long Term arrival numbers are the best leading indicator of Net Overseas Migration Australians can access. The referee looks for Don King as the Doc makes it 12 – 0 to the IPA.
Children’s games have an automatic end once the scoreboard gets messy. But the Doc’s a glutton for punishment. There is a mirage of Uncle Rupert in the room.
The Murdoch press regurgitated the IPA press release with zero fact-checking and added the following heading:
‘Australia records highest net migrant arrivals ever, experts warn of unsustainable growth.’
Rather than such misleading statements, the IPA and the Murdoch press could have pointed out any or all of the following:
I would be right up there with those most likely to agree that Uncle Rupert could be serving something fecund with an agricultural bouquet. But there’s nothing in what Doc references that stinks anywhere near as much as what he is serving. Australia has recorded the three highest NOM outcomes in history over the past three years. Experts do have a lot of questions, and lots of Australians are concerned about that.
Doc, do you understand that? Are you still in a sound state of mind after the beating you have given yourself here?
The game has now reached a point where its poor quality is entertaining, as it highlights just how bad one side can perform. Doc entertains with a scattergun of nonsensical points.
-
the very clear warning from the ABS to be very careful with how NPLT movement data is used;
-
in the March quarter of 2025, net migration was almost 78,000 (or over 40 per cent) less than NPLT for the March quarter, yet the IPA learned nothing from that;
-
net migration has fallen over 40 per cent since the peak in 2022-23 of over 500,000 to currently around 315,000 — the lowest level in three years; and
-
the surge in net migration in 2022-23 was driven largely by Coalition Government policies for overseas students that the Labor Government belatedly tightened (but is now again loosening).
Down over three years but the third highest of all time – Your NOM
Doc. The ABS warned but didn’t acknowledge that the NPLT and NOM results were being used as the Centre for Population had told everyone they should be.
Doc. The NOM is ALWAYS much less than the NPLT, but it still moves the same way and to largely the same degree as the NOM data, which is why it is used as a leading indicator, as the IPA have taken a third of their release to explain!
Doc. The NOM is the lowest in three years but it is the three highest years of all time and the third year would still rank as the highest volume NOM of all time if not for the preceding 2 years!
Doc. The Australian people are seeing and have seen Australian politicians open the floodgates for migration to their homeland and everyone, starting with you, wants to point the other way and deliver mixed messaging about it.
Doc you are down 16 – 0. Someone, please throw in the towel.
But Doc is throwing wild haymakers and not connecting with a thing. Even if he did, he wouldn’t leave a dent in a pound of warm butter.
But these points do not fit the IPA ideology and its desire to stoke anti-immigration fearmongering ahead of the next round of anti-immigration rallies later this month. Those are to be headlined by British anti-immigration agitator Tommy Robinson, who is to speak online (but no longer Nationals anti-immigration Senator Jacinta Price).
There are many important immigration policy issues the IPA could be focusing on including the Labor Government backing out of its commitment to long-term immigration planning; the strong likelihood Treasury’s net migration forecasts for 2025-26 and 2026-27 won’t be delivered; the rising pressure to increase the permanent migration program, particularly from partners of Australians as well as employer sponsored applications; and the massive onshore visa application backlogs.
But the IPA prefers to generate sensationalist headlines to stoke the anti-immigration rallies and encourage anti-immigration politicians also to misuse NPLT data.
Dr Abul Rizvi is an Independent Australia columnist and a former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Immigration. You can follow Abul on Twitter @RizviAbul.
There’s Tommy Robinson and Jacinta Price and Long Term Planning and processing backlogs.
All with as much substance on Australia’s migration questions as the Alsatian a few doors down barking at 2AM.
Thanks Doc.