How to debate immigration rationally without waging culture wars

As coincidences go, a forum of leading economists discussing Australia’s immigration policy on the day Opposition Leader Angus Taylor delivered a speech attacking it, was right up there.

The Melbourne Economic Forum on immigration, which I convened, offered a reasoned, constructive critique of Australia’s immigration program.

But it did not start another front in the culture wars battle that the Liberal Party and One Nation have been waging against the federal government, and anyone who refuses to chant the mantra of “mass immigration”.

Presenters at the forum, held at the Melbourne Institute, were Emeritus Professor Peter McDonald AO, Professor Paul Jensen and Associate Professor Andrew Clarke – all experts in immigration policy and practice.

As convenor, I pointed out that, far from “mass immigration”, Australia’s annual net overseas migration had returned to just above the pre-Covid levels of the previous Coalition government.

It had fallen to negative levels during Covid-era border restrictions and rebounded to make up for these losses in the early post-pandemic period.

The budget forecasts for 2026-27 and subsequent years are 225,000 – below the levels of the previous government.

But, as the saying goes, never let the facts get in the way of a good scare campaign.

The scare campaign of “mass immigration” is being run mainly by One Nation and the Advance Australia Foundation. But the Coalition is seeking to stem the leakage of its supporters to One Nation by running a negative immigration campaign.

At the forum, McDonald reset the argument about annual net overseas migration to point out that what really matters is the total number of migrants in Australia at any time – the stock – rather than the addition to that number in any year – the flow.

He explained that in any year, temporary migrants greatly outnumber permanent migrants. Yet they all need housing and government services.

Many of those temporary migrants have no intention of seeking permanency. Canada has adopted targets for the stock of migrants and McDonald suggests Australia should consider doing the same, instead of concentrating on annual net overseas migration.

Clarke argued that the real challenge is not the level of migration, but how well it is managed.

An immigration program that supports overall growth in living standards is in the national interest, rather than just focusing on the number of immigrants. Waves of skilled and entrepreneurial migrants had helped build Australia.

Jensen focused on the capacity of migrants to boost innovation in Australia, showing that this is an understated but major benefit of immigration. He argued for strong emphasis on skilled migration, exemplified by PhD students studying in Australia.

The forum that followed the presentations debated these issues with a variety of views being expressed by some of the brightest academics in Australia.

While a diversity of views was evident, no one sought to engage in culture wars or in the rhetoric of “mass immigration”.

The forum was a fabulous example of how to analyse and critically evaluate Australia’s immigration program without deploying demeaning rhetoric.

I closed the forum by pointing out that, with the exception of First Nations people, all Australian citizens are immigrants or their descendants. Demeaning new immigrants seems rather hypocritical.

Perhaps the real motive behind Angus Taylor’s speech was to fend off the threat of One Nation in the looming byelection in the seat of Farrer, vacated by former Liberal leader, Sussan Ley.

But One Nation won’t go away after the byelection. Indeed, if it wins it will be emboldened to double down on its anti-immigration rhetoric.

A contest on which party can most vociferously vilify particular categories of migrants would open another ugly chapter in Australia’s history of racial discrimination that many of us hoped had ended with Gough Whitlam’s abandonment of the White Australia policy.