The immigration debate Australia is getting wrong

Migration has become one of the most emotional issues in Australia.

And frankly, that’s understandable.

Many Australians are dealing with higher rents, a shortage of homes, congested roads, pressure on schools and hospitals, and the feeling that population growth has run ahead of planning.

So when people hear someone say Australia should offer more permanent visas, not fewer, the reaction is often immediate.

Surely that just means more people, more pressure, and more competition for housing?

But that misses the point.

As demographer Simon Kuestenmacher explained to me, the real issue isn’t simply whether Australia should have more migrants or fewer migrants.

The better question is what sort of migration system Australia actually needs.

Do we want a revolving door of temporary workers, international students and short-term visa holders who contribute for a while and then leave?

Or do we want a more deliberate system that chooses the people Australia needs, trains them well, gives them certainty, and allows them to put down roots?

That’s a much more useful conversation.

And it’s the one Australia should be having.

For weekly insights, subscribe to the Demographics Decoded podcast, where we will continue to explore these trends and their implications in greater detail.

Subscribe now on your favourite Podcast player:

• Apple Podcasts
• Spotify
• YouTube

We are asking the wrong question

At the moment, the migration debate is usually reduced to a simple argument.

One side says we need fewer migrants because housing, infrastructure and services are under pressure.

The other side says we need migration because the economy needs workers, universities need students, and our ageing population needs a broader tax base.

Both arguments contain some truth. But neither goes far enough.

Simon made the point that Australia is taking in roughly the right number of migrants over the long term.

He suggested that annual net migration of around 220,000 to 230,000 people is broadly what Australia needs to slow the ageing of the population and support the economy.

He was not calling for reckless population growth. In his words:

"I want more permanent migrants. I’m not saying I want more migrants."

That distinction matters.

Because at the moment, only about 16% of visas Australia grants are permanent.

The vast majority are temporary. And that changes everything.

Temporary migration has a place, but it has limits

Temporary migration isn’t bad.

In fact, it plays an important role in Australia.

Working holiday makers fill jobs in agriculture, tourism and hospitality that many locals simply don’t want to do.

Temporary skilled workers help businesses deal with shortages in key industries.

Restaurants couldn’t find staff. Farmers couldn’t get fruit picked. Hospitality businesses were forced to cut hours or close.

So this is not an argument for abolishing temporary migration.

But there is a problem when too much of the system becomes temporary.

Temporary migrants are less likely to fully integrate because they often don’t know whether they will be allowed to stay.

They may work, study and contribute, but they remain uncertain about their long-term future. That uncertainty affects how people behave.

Someone who arrives knowing Australia will likely be their permanent home approaches life very differently from someone who is here on a visa that may or may not be extended.

As Simon put it:

"People plan their lives differently when they know this will be their forever home."

That’s the key point many people miss.

Integration requires certainty

A person who arrives with permanent residency is more likely to put down roots.

They are more likely to buy a home, start a business, build a career, join local organisations, develop friendships, and commit to Australia as their future.

They also have a stronger incentive to help their children succeed here.

That’s exactly what happened with many post-war migrant communities.

Italian and Greek migrants who arrived in Australia after the Second World War didn’t come for a short stint.

For many of them, Australia was their permanent destination.

They built businesses. They bought homes. They raised children. They became part of the fabric of Australian society.

Today, we rightly regard those communities as a migration success story.

But at the time, many of them faced prejudice and hardship. That’s worth remembering.

Successful integration often looks obvious in hindsight, but it takes time, certainty and opportunity.

Our current system makes that harder by relying too heavily on temporary pathways.

One job, one migrant, or a revolving door?

Simon gave a very useful example.

Imagine Australia needs an engineer.

If that job is filled by a young permanent migrant, that person may work in Australia for 40 years.

Over time, they build professional networks, become part of the community, pay tax, perhaps buy property, raise a family and integrate into the country.

But if that same job is filled only through temporary visas, it may be occupied by six, seven or eight different migrants over the same 40-year period.

Each person may contribute while they are here, but the integration task is repeated over and over again.

The population number at any one time may not be very different, but the social outcome is.

That’s why Simon argues permanent migration can actually be better from an integration perspective.

If your concern is social cohesion, permanent migration should not be dismissed.

In many cases, it should be preferred.

International students should be part of the skilled migration strategy

One of the biggest opportunities is hiding in plain sight.

Australia already attracts large numbers of international students.

Many of them are young, ambitious and already living here.

They study in our institutions, learn our systems, build local friendships and often want to stay.

Yet our international education system and skilled migration system often operate too separately.

Simon argues they should be much more closely linked. That makes sense.

Australia already knows where future skill shortages are likely to occur.

We know we need more engineers, doctors, nurses, aged care workers, teachers and other skilled professionals.

So why not align student visas more closely with those future needs?

If a student comes to Australia, studies in an area of national shortage, meets high academic standards, demonstrates strong English, and performs well, why wouldn’t we create a clearer pathway to permanent residency?

That doesn’t mean every international student should stay.

It means we should be more strategic.

As Simon explained, Australia could effectively select from the best students who are already educated here and partly integrated.

They have paid for their own education. They understand local institutions. They are young enough to contribute for decades.

That seems a much smarter approach than constantly importing temporary workers after shortages have already become severe.

Higher standards are not anti-migration

One of the strongest parts of Simon’s argument is that a better migration system should also be a more demanding one.

Supporting migration doesn’t mean accepting lower standards.

In fact, if Australia wants to maintain public confidence in migration, we should probably be lifting standards in some areas.

Simon argued for stronger English language requirements and higher academic expectations for international students.

He also made the point that people who commit serious crimes should face clearer visa consequences.

That may sound tough, but it’s also part of maintaining trust.

As Simon put it:

"If you run a high migration system, you must constantly renew your social licence."

That’s an important point.

Australians are generally fair-minded, but they want to know the system is being managed.

They want to know migration is serving the national interest. They want to know standards are being maintained. And they want confidence that government is in control.

• Also read:Sydney property market forecast for 2026 and 2027 | Why the short-term softness is a long-term opportunity
• Also read:Latest Property Price Forecasts. Australian Property Market Outlook 2026: Where To Now After The Rate Rise & Budget Changes.
• Also read:Brisbane Property Market Forecast [2026 & Beyond] – What The Olympics Decade Means for Investors.
• Also read:Melbourne property market forecast for 2026 & 2027 | Why the opportunity is bigger than it looks
• Also read:This week’s Australian Property Market Update – Latest Data, State by State June 23rd 2026

When those things are not explained well, frustration grows.

And when frustration grows, simplistic political slogans start to fill the vacuum.

The politics of anger is dangerous

Migration is an easy target when people are frustrated.

If rents are high, blame migrants. If roads are congested, blame migrants. If hospital waiting lists are long, blame migrants. If people feel the system is no longer working for them, migration becomes a convenient explanation.

But convenient explanations are not always accurate ones.

Simon warned that the anti-migration mood in Australia reflects a broader anger seen in other countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom and parts of Europe.

People feel the system is not working as it should.

Some feel they have been left behind. Others feel the country is changing too quickly. That anger is real.

But if it turns into a desire to burn the whole system down, Australia could make very poor decisions.

We saw that in Britain with Brexit.

Many people voted out of frustration, but the economic and social consequences were far more complex than the slogans suggested.

Australia should be careful not to import that style of politics.

We are still a wealthy, stable, functioning society. That doesn’t mean everything is working well.

Clearly, it isn’t.

Governments have failed to explain the trade-offs

One reason the migration debate has deteriorated is that governments have not explained it well.

Most Australians are not given a clear story about why migration matters, how it supports the economy, where the pressure points are, and what reforms are needed.

Instead, they hear fragments.

Businesses say they need workers. Universities say they need students. Renters say there are not enough homes. Politicians say they will manage the system.

But the whole story is rarely explained.

Simon was blunt about this. He argued that major political parties often fail to clearly explain their broader plan for the country. That failure matters.

When governments don’t explain complexity, someone else will offer simplicity.

And simple answers are usually more emotionally satisfying, even when they are wrong.

The housing problem is real, but migration is not the only cause

None of this means migration has no impact on housing. Of course it does.

More people need more homes. That is basic arithmetic.

And if population growth rises faster than housing supply, rents and prices come under pressure.

But the mistake is to assume migration is the whole housing problem.

Australia’s housing shortage has been building for years.

Planning systems are too slow. Construction costs have risen sharply. Infrastructure delivery has lagged.

Governments have loaded new housing with taxes and charges.

Investors have been discouraged in some states, particularly Victoria.

And we simply haven’t built enough of the right homes in the right locations.

So yes, migration adds demand.

But poor planning and inadequate housing supply are the deeper problems.

And it may create other problems.

Cutting migration creates consequences

It is easy to say Australia should cut migration. It is much harder to explain what happens next.

If we cut skilled migration, we worsen labour shortages.

If we cut international students, we reduce billions of dollars flowing into the education sector and broader economy.

If we cut younger migrants, we accelerate population ageing.

If the tax base weakens, the burden on working Australians grows.

Simon made this point clearly:

"If Australia removes one source of income or economic activity, it must replace it somewhere else."

That might mean higher taxes. It might mean lower services. It might mean fewer workers in industries already under pressure.

Every policy choice has consequences.

A mature debate would acknowledge those trade-offs.

Unfortunately, much of the current migration debate avoids them.

Australia is still a migration nation

Australia sometimes forgets how much of its modern success has been built on migration.

Around 70% of our population growth now comes from overseas migration. Only about 30% comes from natural increase.

And as Australians have fewer children, migration will become even more important in slowing the ageing of the population.

Some states would barely grow without overseas migration. Others would eventually begin to shrink.

That doesn’t mean we should accept any level of migration without question.

But it does mean migration is not some optional extra sitting outside Australia’s economic future. It is part of the system.

The question is whether we manage it well.

We need a settlement policy, not just a migration policy

To me, this is the central issue.

Do they have a realistic pathway to settlement?

 Are they filling genuine skill gaps? Are they able to integrate? Are they living in places where housing and infrastructure can support growth? Are we selecting people based on Australia’s long-term needs? Are we maintaining high standards? Are we explaining the benefits and costs honestly to the Australian public?

That’s the conversation we should be having.

As Simon said:

"Australia doesn’t just need a migration policy. It needs a settlement policy."

I agree.

Because the problem is not migration itself. The problem is poor planning.

Poor housing delivery. Poor communication.

And a visa system that too often treats people as temporary inputs rather than potential long-term contributors.

What this means for property investors

For property investors, there is another layer to this discussion.

Demographics drive property markets over the long term.

Where people move, how households form, where jobs are created, and how communities grow all influence future housing demand.

Migration is one of the most powerful demographic forces shaping Australia.

But smart investors should look beyond the headline population number.

Permanent skilled migrants are more likely to form households, buy homes, raise families and become long-term participants in local economies.

Temporary students and working holiday makers tend to place more demand on rental markets, especially in inner-city and education-linked locations.

Both matter. But they affect the market differently.

That’s why migration policy, education policy, housing policy and infrastructure policy cannot be viewed in isolation.

They all shape the future of our cities.

And as I’ve said many times before, property markets are not just driven by interest rates or auction clearance rates.

They are driven by people. Where they live. How they live. And what they can afford.

The bottom line

Australia’s migration debate needs to grow up.

We can’t keep reducing it to slogans about more migrants or fewer migrants.

We need to ask better questions.

What skills does Australia need? Which migrants are most likely to contribute over the long term? How do we help people integrate successfully? How do we maintain public confidence? How do we build enough homes and infrastructure to support population growth?

And how do we ensure migration strengthens Australia rather than becoming a political scapegoat?

The answer is not open borders. And it is not shutting the door.

That may not fit neatly into a political slogan. But it is the conversation Australia needs.