The Hypocrisy of Migration Policies: A Tale of Two Parties
'Do as I say, not as I do': this age-old adage seems to ring true for Australia's major political parties when it comes to migration. The Coalition is gearing up to unveil a policy centered on drastically reducing migrant numbers, but the devil is in the details. Are they referring to net overseas migration (NOM) or specific visa programs? And why does this matter?
Amidst the heated debates and emotionally charged rhetoric, it's crucial to separate fact from fiction. The Covid-19 pandemic caused NOM to plummet below zero during lockdowns, only to skyrocket to unprecedented levels post-reopening. This dramatic swing has fueled accusations of a 'mass immigration agenda' against Labor, but the reality is more nuanced.
Here's where it gets controversial: the recent decline in NOM might be an overcorrection as visa rules tighten and departures increase. Yet, the population remains below pre-pandemic projections. And here's the twist: the government can't directly control NOM since it's influenced by people's decisions to leave the country.
The global nature of the pandemic's impact on migration cannot be overstated. The surge in NOM is not unique to Australia; it's a worldwide trend. Blaming Labor for a 'mass immigration' policy is like pointing fingers at a driver for hitting a pothole on a bumpy road.
So, what's the real issue? The spotlight should be on permanent and temporary visa programs. The permanent program, set annually by the government, has remained relatively stable at around 185,000 people per year, with a skilled-family visa ratio of 2:1. However, the temporary visa program has become increasingly significant.
In 2024-2025, the Home Affairs Department issued hundreds of thousands of temporary visas, including student, working holiday, and skilled worker visas. These temporary migrants are vital to the economy, with 84% of the growth in skilled migrant employment attributed to them. But the irony is striking. The very party that opposes high migration, the Liberals, has, through its policy decisions, fostered the growth of temporary migration over the past 25 years.
Research reveals that conservative governments have made universities reliant on international student fees, introduced temporary skilled migrant visas, and expanded post-study work rights. Meanwhile, Labor, when in power, has tended to tighten immigration rules, raising compliance standards and cracking down on visa abuses.
This leads to a fascinating paradox: the temporary program, favored by the Coalition, is the source of many of the issues they are most concerned about. So, who's the real 'Big Australia' party?
A closer look at voting records and public statements shows that both left and right-wing parties are internally conflicted on migration. Left-leaning parties like Labor are culturally open to migration but economically closed, aligning with unions for a regulated labor market. On the other hand, the conservative side, historically divided, must balance business interests in cheap labor with nationalist sentiments.
In essence, both parties find themselves in a delicate dance, trying to appease various factions within their ranks. But the question remains: can they find a middle ground that serves the best interests of Australia's migration policies and its residents?
