Immigration is among the most controversial issues in politics globally, including in Australia, where it is helping fuel the rise of Pauline Hanson’s anti-immigration One Nation as a significant political force challenging the government.
Under these circumstances, the Government knows it needs to demonstrate competence on immigration policy and shore up public confidence in the migration system. Yet last week Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke postponed a major National Press Club speech on immigration because the Government’s policy was not ready.
So what should Burke say when he does address the Press Club? Assuming his objectives are to address the real problems in Australian migration management and reassure the public that the system is under control, we suggest six messages. Getting these settings right would matter beyond Australia too: many countries look to Australia as a model of effective migration management.
“Last week Tony Burke postponed a major National Press Club speech because the policy was not ready”
Above all, Burke should explain not merely how the Government intends to reduce migration, but what problem it is trying to solve. He needs a coherent account of the post-pandemic surge, the structural weaknesses it exposed, and the principles guiding reform. Here’s six things Burke should say to the National Press Club on immigration:
1. “We are still stabilising the migration system after COVID-19”
Burke should begin by explaining that COVID-19 did not simply reduce migration. It abruptly interrupted both arrivals and departures. When borders reopened, arrivals recovered quickly, but departures responded more slowly. Students, working holidaymakers and other temporary residents whose stays or pathways had been extended during the pandemic continued moving through the system.
The result was a “migration splash”: movement was first suppressed, then released in a sharp rebound that overshot before beginning to settle. Net overseas migration has already fallen substantially from its post-pandemic peak and is forecast to decline further.
“Net overseas migration has already fallen substantially from its post-pandemic peak and is forecast to decline further”
Burke should therefore make clear that the task is not to slam the door on arrivals after the peak has passed. It is to ensure that the return to normal is orderly, credible and durable, including by carefully managing delayed departures associated with pandemic-era visa extensions and disrupted migration pathways.
2. “Net overseas migration is an outcome, not a policy lever”
Burke should next explain what net overseas migration actually measures. NOM is the difference between migrant arrivals and migrant departures. It is an accounting outcome, not a program governments can set with the same precision as the permanent migration intake.
Governments can influence NOM through visa grants and settings, processing priorities and the conditions governing entry, stay and departure. But they cannot simply declare a number and expect the system to produce it precisely. Announcing NOM targets without explaining how entries, transitions and departures will be managed invites forecasting errors and further loss of public confidence.
Burke should therefore argue that governments should be judged by whether they have credible mechanisms for governing the migration system, rather than whether every annual NOM estimate exactly matches a political promise made years earlier.
This distinction matters because net migration is the aggregate outcome of many very different forms of movement. Framing NOM itself as the problem invites imprecision and encourages the false conclusion that all migration is problematic. That is simply not the case. Addressing the things people actually care about requires greater precision than a single net migration figure can provide.
3. “Australia must rebalance its permanent and temporary migration systems”
Burke should then identify the deeper structural problem. Australia still talks as though it operates a traditional settlement system centred on a small, carefully planned permanent program. In practice, that program sits alongside a much larger and more demand-driven temporary system encompassing international students, temporary workers, working holidaymakers, visitors and bridging-visa holders.
Temporary migration is economically and socially valuable. The problem is not temporary migrants. It is that temporary residence has expanded without an equally clear plan for settlement or departure.
“The problem…is that temporary residence has expanded without an equally clear plan for settlement or departure”
This leaves too many people changing visas repeatedly, waiting in queues or remaining in prolonged uncertainty. It also complicates housing, infrastructure and service planning and increases vulnerability to labour exploitation.
Burke should acknowledge that the temporary system has mushroomed partly because of deregulation that occurred 25 years ago in a different era. And he should clarify that Government now needs the regulatory capacity to govern that system more deliberately.
4. “We are introducing practical levers to regulate temporary migration”
Burke should explain that where visa demand is potentially unlimited, government needs mechanisms that allow it to regulate volumes without manufacturing enormous application backlogs.
For some temporary visa categories, prospective applicants could first pass through a low-cost registration, expression-of-interest, pre-screening or ballot stage. Only those selected would be invited to lodge a full application. This would allow government to regulate application volumes while avoiding the costly and unfair practice of accepting large numbers of applications that cannot be processed promptly.
The principle Burke should articulate is simple: government should decide how many complete applications it can realistically assess before encouraging people to invest substantial time and money in applying. Any such mechanisms should, of course, be transparent, reviewable and tailored to the visa category concerned.
5. “We are giving temporary visas clearer guardrails and credible endpoints”
Burke should also say that temporary visas need a clear purpose, a credible duration and defined routes either to permanent residence or departure. Government should address serial visa changes, repeated enrolments with little educational progression, weakly founded review applications and other mechanisms used primarily to prolong residence.
“Government should address serial visa changes and repeated enrolments with little educational progression”
But he should be equally clear that not every visa transition is an abuse. People legitimately change employers, form relationships, seek protection or become eligible for skilled permanent residence. Reform must distinguish these valid transitions from practices designed mainly to delay departure.
Partner and humanitarian applicants should not become convenient instruments for producing a lower NOM number. The objective should be a temporary system with clear rules and predictable endpoints, not arbitrary delays that leave families and vulnerable people in limbo.
Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke speaks in Sydney on April 30. Picture: Hollie Adams/REUTERS
6. “We are recalibrating the permanent program to help stabilise the temporary population”
Finally, Burke should explain that the permanent and temporary programs cannot be managed as separate worlds. The size and composition of the permanent intake should be considered partly in relation to the temporary population already in Australia.
“Burke should explain that the permanent and temporary programs cannot be managed as separate worlds”
A temporarily larger permanent program can, counterintuitively, help reduce pressure on the temporary system by converting established residents rather than leaving them cycling through provisional visas. Permanent places should therefore give appropriate priority to suitable people already living, working, paying taxes and contributing in Australia.
Burke should make the arithmetic clear: onshore conversion does not add another person to the population. It changes the status of someone already here, provides greater certainty to employers and communities, and reduces the need to recruit another person offshore to fill the same permanent place.
A system that government can actually govern
Burke’s overarching message should be neither that migration is “out of control” nor that there is nothing to worry about. It should be that the post-COVID surge is receding, but that it exposed a migration system designed to control permanent settlement while allowing temporary residence to expand without adequate regulation.
The Government’s task is now to complete the post-pandemic stabilisation, build effective controls over temporary migration, and reconnect temporary entry to deliberate decisions about settlement and departure.
That is a more credible response to public concern than chasing a single NOM number. It preserves the benefits of migration while replacing short-term numerical theatre with a system that government can actually govern.
Alan Gamlen is Professor of the Australian National University Migration Hub.
Peter McDonald is Emeritus Professor of Demography at the Australian National University Migration Hub.
Quality independent journalism is vital to our democracy. Please consider supporting us for as little as $10 a month, or by making a one-off donation of any amount here.
(You can also support us via PayPal, or by making a direct deposit.)
Thank you!
Anthony Klan
Editor, The Klaxon
