Truth about Australia’s immigration number

The issue of migration has emerged as a major fault line between the Albanese government and the Opposition of Liberal Leader Peter Dutton.

As the political battlegrounds are drawn for the next federal election, the issue of migration has emerged as a major fault line between the Albanese government and the Liberal Party.

Following the release of the report into the migration system undertaken by former Victorian Police Commissioner Christine Nixon, the Albanese government pledged to “fix” “a broken migration system”.

Part of this process was reducing the net migration intake to 375,000 in 2023-24 and 260,000 in 2024-25.

Meanwhile, the opposition under its leader Peter Dutton have pledged to cut net migration to 160,000 per year if they are elected.

As the debate continues in Canberra, it begs the question, how does Australia’s current migration intake stack up to its own past and to comparable nations throughout the developed world? And how would the proposals of Labor and Coalition compare if they were to come to pass?

Looking back – From the beginning

Since Federation over a century ago, per capita net migration into Australia has varied dramatically, as the impact of economic cycles, wars and changes in policy moved the needle to varying degrees.

Across the entirety of Australia’s pre-pandemic history, net migration averaged an annual level that equated to 0.55 per cent of the population.

Per capita migration has been deeply cyclical. Picture: Supplied

When looking at the history of migration into Australia in per capita terms across the last 50 years, it can be divided into two distinct eras, pre-2005 and post-2005.

Between 1974 and 2005, per capita migration was deeply cyclical, rising and falling in line with the economy and the level of demand present in the labour market.

For example, in the late 1980s migration per capita hit its highest level since before the beginning of the 1970s Oil Crisis and the subsequent recession.

But after peaking at 1.046% in 1988, the level of net migration continued to fall until it slowed to a relative crawl in the mid-1990s. As of the latest data from the ABS which covers up until the end of 2023, migration is currently 2.03 per cent.

While the increase in temporary visa holders (excluding visitors and other short-term categories) saw migration levels surge when borders reopened in early 2022, figures from the Department of Home Affairs show that by the end of 2022 there were 84,000 more temporary visa holders than during that same time of year prior to the pandemic.

The issue of migration has emerged as a major fault line. Picture: Supplied

A more global comparison

Globally, prior to the pandemic, the average rate of per capita migration for nations defined as developed by the United Nations with populations over 1 million was 0.39 per cent.

This figure is impacted by the low levels of net migration in Japan, South Korea and much of the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.

How Australia compares to the world. Picture: Supplied

In the interests of provided an additional perspective, the figure rises to 0.47 per cent when focused solely on Western and Northern Europe.

This is defined as: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the U.K.

Why you may ask is the focus on pre-pandemic figures? In short, the pandemic and the war in Ukraine.

Some nations still don’t have figures beyond 2022, while others were still seeing the impact of Ukrainian refugees in their figures for 2023.

In terms of the latest figures for northern and western Europe which are impacted by the war in Ukraine and encompass either 2022 or 2023 calendar year depending on the nation, the migration rate was 0.93 per cent.

Labor vs. Coalition – Plans for change

Based on the current Treasury forecasts for migration under the Albanese government, the nation would see net migration of 260,000 for 2024-25, this represents a migration rate as a proportion of the population at the end of that period of 0.94 per cent.

If the Coalition were to come to power and have their target of 160,000 per year met under the same circumstances, this represents a migration rate of 0.58 per cent.

Based on the pre-Covid and pre-war in Ukraine rate of migration into northern and western Europe, the Albanese government strategy comes in with a figure that is 94.2 per cent higher in per capita terms, with the oppositions proposal 19.8 per cent higher.

However, when compared with the more recent numbers which are heavily impacted by the flow of refugees from Ukraine, the Albanese government’s path comes in 1.5 per cent higher.

When contrasted with historic levels of migration, the proposal from the Coalition is more in line with the historic average seen from federation, through to the pandemic (Proposal: 0.58 per cent vs. 0.55 per cent).

Meanwhile, the settings from the Albanese government are roughly in line with the ‘Big Australia’ era from 2006 until the present, 0.94 per cent vs. 0.91 per cent historically.

The issue of migration has emerged as a major fault line. Picture: Supplied

If either the Coalition or the Albanese government realise their forecasted plans there is precedent in the nation’s history.

For the Albanese government it can point to the pre-pandemic status quo as its political touchstone.

For the Opposition, it can make a case that its plan is a return to the historic long run average seen since Federation.

Ultimately, it will be up to the electorate to decide which vision of the future they prefer and which of the two historic settings they see as benefiting the individual voter and the fortunes of the nation to a greater degree.

Tarric Brooker is a freelance journalist and social commentator | @AvidCommentator

Originally published as Truth about Australia’s immigration number