#Immigration #Housing Affordability #Election
For decades, Australia has long been a country relying on immigration to drive the country’s development, from economic growth and addressing labor shortages to enriching the multicultural identity. However, the debate around migration has become increasingly polarized nowadays. At the government level, the issues around immigration have formed a key battleground in the upcoming federal election. Peter Dutton last had announced to cut permanent migration levels to relieve the housing crisis, while the current Labor government has also planned to cut net migration this financial year. At the public level, a recent article published in The Guardian discussed a national study that revealed a severe contradiction in public opinion regarding the immigration issue: while many Australians support reducing the overall migration, a majority do not want to see cuts to international student numbers, which is one of the country’s largest migration groups and a critical economic contributor.
This tension highlights a central issue in the current immigration policy: the disconnect between perception and impact. The study by the Australian National University researchers shows that while concerns about housing affordability and infrastructure strain influence public sentiment, people still recognize the importance of international students, who contribute billions annually to education and related industries. Ultimately, this puts policymakers in a difficult position. Calls to broadly reduce migration risk undermine sectors that are thriving and essential to national progress. Universities rely heavily on international enrolments, and many students go on to become skilled residents, filling key workforce gaps. Blanket reductions would hurt both education and future skilled migration pipelines.
Moreover, the idea that migration is to blame for economic hardship distracts from structural issues. Housing unaffordability, for instance, instead of immigrants coming to the country causing the unaffordability as claimed by some politicians, the issue has deeper roots in zoning restrictions, investor speculation, and underinvestment in social housing. Targeting migrants instead of addressing these issues is a political shortcut, not a solution. In addition, it should also be noted, a nuance often missing from media and political debates, that not all forms of migration are viewed equally. While permanent migration and humanitarian intake are frequently debated, international students are often seen more favorably, particularly due to their economic benefits. This suggests that Australia’s immigration policy needs to be more sophisticated, distinguishing between migration categories and making decisions based on long-term national interest, not short-term public anxiety.
As the government faces pressure to act, the risk is that politically convenient policies will override data-driven strategies. Australia needs an immigration system that’s transparent, responsive, and strategic. That means retaining international students, supporting skilled migration, and addressing the real causes of economic pressure, rather than leaning into populist narratives. Migration, when well-managed, is not a burden but a backbone of national development. If we want a more prosperous and inclusive future, we must resist oversimplified solutions and build immigration policy around facts, not fear.
Be the first to comment