Did the Coalition's pledged cuts to migration backfire?
A pledge to cut migration levels could be one of the key issues to haunt the Coalition as it reels from its . Part of the Coalition's pitch to voters was a proposed 100,000-place cut to net overseas migration (the difference between the number of people entering and leaving Australia). While it said the bulk of the cuts would focus on skilled migration , the lack of detail around which visa streams would be targeted was repeatedly scrutinised in the final weeks of the campaign. Redbridge Group director Simon Welsh told SBS News the Coalition's immigration stance "absolutely" backfired.
"Where the electorate was wanting hope and a positive plan, they were offering negativity," Welsh said. "Whether that was on immigration, , [or] whether that was on public servants."
Outgoing Liberal leader Peter Dutton linked record levels of migration — which peaked at 536,000 in 2022-23, but which Treasury estimates will return to 260,000 next year — with exacerbating demand on housing supply and pushing up prices. Welsh argued that in diverse communities, this rhetoric turned voters away from the Coalition. He said there are two distinct voting blocs — established migrant communities and those in the "growth phase", which are experiencing higher levels of migration to Australia. Among the latter, which includes the Chinese and Indian diaspora, Welsh said the Coalition's immigration policies "really were a negative".
"For families that are thinking about wanting to bring family over, because those communities are in this growth phase, that Liberal stuff was definitely a drag to them," he said. This was evident in the results across Sydney and Melbourne. Labor retained Hawke, Gorton and Chisholm in Victoria, and Parramatta and Reid in NSW, despite early polling showing these highly diverse seats were contestable.
The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre said voters had rejected the politics of fear and division. "Voters have acted with compassion and it's time for our elected representatives and political leaders to reflect this in the incoming parliament," Deputy CEO Jane Favero said in a statement.
In a March working paper, emeritus professor Peter McDonald and professor Alan Gamlen of the ANU Migration Hub argued that migration numbers were being "weaponised" to "elicit panic and sway voters". They outlined several reasons for the record migration levels during 2022-23. These included an influx of students, backpackers and temporary workers unable to travel during the pandemic, as well as several visa extensions under the Morrison and Albanese governments. However, with student levels on the decline and many of these extensions set to expire, they predict migration levels will sharply drop in three to four years. "From about 2027, as the number of departures expands considerably, net overseas migration is likely to plummet," they said. Visit the to access articles, podcasts and videos from SBS News, NITV and our teams covering more than 60 languages.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
US President Donald Trump yet to call Prime Minister Anthony Albanese after G7 cancellation, but meeting still expected
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese remains without a phone call from Donald Trump after his G7 snub, even though the US President reached out to other countries he cancelled meetings with and met with an Italian soccer team. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has yet to receive a phone call from US President Donald Trump after their meeting was cancelled at the G7 summit in Canada. After the planned bilateral was abruptly cancelled so President Trump could address the Middle East conflict, he reached out to India and Mexico. As of Saturday, Mr Albanese had not received a phone call from President Trump, even though he contacted Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. There has been no indication that President Trump has contacted other cancelled counterparts, such as South Korean President Lee Jae-myung, or Mr Albanese. The Albanese government has suggested there is no cause for concern, despite the highly visible diplomatic snub. A meeting between the two leaders is still agreed to, according to senior government sources - and the question now is simply when, not if. There is much cooperation defence space between the US and Australia and this meeting will happen, government sources believe. While President Trump rushed home from the G7 due to tensions in the Middle East, his schedule back in Washington included a puzzling detour to meet an Italian soccer team. President Trump met with players from Juventus FC, who were in the US for the Club World Cup. He questioned Juventus FC players for their view on transgender athletes, asking, 'Could a woman make your team, fellas?' 'We have a very good women's team,' General manager Damien Comolli responded. President Trump said: 'You do, but they should be playing with women… He's being very diplomatic." The brief and awkward exchange followed President Trump's executive order from earlier this year banning transgender athletes from women's and girls' sports — Anthony Albanese (@AlboMP) June 17, 2025 Despite the absence of a face-to-face with the US President, Mr Albanese was still able to use the G7 summit to press the case on trade with members of the Trump administration. Mr Albanese held two 20-minute meetings with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. The government reiterated its argument that tariffs on Australian goods make little economic sense, saying that only four per cent of exports go to the United States. Meanwhile, beef exports to the US rose 91 per cent year-on-year from April to April - even as US tariffs took effect from early April. One emerging theory among sources was that President Trump simply has little interest in multilateral forums. Sources suggest he dislikes summits like the G7, where tensions with European and Asian allies are more likely to flare. Given President Trump's differences with many world leaders, there is a view that the meeting was almost like the G6 - plus the US. Despite the cancelled meeting and lack of follow-up contact, officials remain hopeful a rescheduled Trump-Albanese meeting can still take place. The UN General Assembly in New York in September has shaped up as the next likely opportunity.
The Age
4 hours ago
- The Age
Shadow fleets and ‘grey-zone' sabotage: The communication battleground beneath the waves
In October 2023, damage to the Balticconnector gas pipeline and telecom cables linking Estonia, Sweden and Finland made headlines. Official statements were cautious, but satellite data later tracked a Chinese-flagged vessel suspiciously close to the damage zone. A similar pattern repeated off the coast of Denmark's Bornholm island just months later. Each time, attribution proved elusive – but not implausible. Loading CSRI executive director Andrew Yeh said the involvement of commercial shadow fleets was consistent with grey-zone doctrine. 'Undersea cables underpin prosperity and security in the digital age,' he said. 'We cannot afford to be naive about the unprecedented threat that China and Russia's grey-zone operations pose to the UK's undersea infrastructure. The Baltic Sea is a peculiar theatre for modern maritime competition. At first glance, it's a crowded body of water – shallow, narrow, hemmed in by nine countries, six of them NATO members. But that congestion is precisely what makes it a high-stakes flashpoint. It has become a transport lifeline for Vladimir Putin's Russia, both in terms of exports and imports, and strategically. About 60 undersea cable systems crisscross the Baltic, with more added each year. These cables don't just power Netflix in Norway or Zoom in Zeebrugge – they form the encrypted foundation of NATO's command networks, trans-Atlantic data flows, and even the control systems for power grids and offshore wind farms. Yet NATO admits that it can't see everything. Much of the Baltic's maritime domain isn't covered by the automatic identification system that tracks commercial ships. Vessels operating 'dark' – without beacons, under false flags or masking their activity – have found freedom in the grey. That's where Task Force X comes in. Onboard Alliance, we're watching unmanned surface vehicles such as the Saildrone Explorer and Martac's Devil Ray glide in formation with crewed vessels. These aren't science-fair toys. They're the spear point of a NATO-wide effort to fill the surveillance gaps in increasingly contested waters. This week in The Hague, the issue will be high on the agenda of world leaders as they come together to discuss and debate European security and, in particular, the rate of spending needed to keep the continent safe. Data from the new systems and unmanned vehicles taking part in these exercises will be fed directly to a screen in real-time during the summit, showcasing the technology's effectiveness in enhancing NATO's understanding of the Baltic region. Leaders will also be asked to endorse a new rapid adoption action plan to ensure NATO's defences remain fit for purpose in an era of rapidly evolving threats and disruptive technological advancements. Task Force X is designed to integrate uncrewed systems – surface, subsurface and aerial – into NATO's maritime task groups. It's a lesson in agility, drawn from the US Navy's successful experiments in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea. But where those missions focused on anti-terrorism and anti-piracy, this one is squarely about deterring sabotage, especially to undersea infrastructure. The recent spate of attacks has accelerated the mission's rollout, with several NATO nations contributing commercial off-the-shelf systems upgraded with AI detection, sonar arrays and encrypted communications. 'The idea is to decentralise detection,' says Captain David Portal of Allied Maritime Command. 'We use autonomous vessels to track anomalies – dark ships, unexpected activity around known cable routes – and then feed that data into a real-time, pan-alliance picture.' The goal? To spot suspicious activity before the cable is cut – not after. What makes this different from past NATO initiatives is its scope. Task Force X isn't just plugging in new drones – it's part of a broader 'digital ocean vision', which seeks to use AI, big data and machine learning to create a living, learning map of NATO waters. Simon Purton, the head of innovation at NATO's Allied Command Transformation, says the organisation has moved with unprecedented speed following the disruptions to undersea infrastructure in the past year, integrating the allies' capabilities with scalable platforms to provide situational awareness, and deterrence, 24/7. 'The future that we see for the military exists in our industry ... in academia ... in our science and technology labs,' he says. 'So what we're trying to do then is create some tangible delivery on that, and also make sure that things are operationally relevant.' Loading Onboard the ship Alliance, that transformation is tangible. In the ship's command centre, researchers and officers watch sonar feeds and machine-learning-driven anomaly alerts. On-screen blips mark every commercial vessel. More worrying are the gaps – ship tracks that go dark near critical cable corridors, only to reappear hours later, far from where they should be. The stakes aren't abstract. In January, foreign ministers from Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania issued a joint communique pledging to 'intensify maritime patrols' after more confirmed sabotage incidents. While none pointed fingers directly, the language was unequivocal: this was the work of hostile actors. Russia, for its part, denies involvement. But few NATO commanders are buying that narrative. Australia's vast digital economy, worth billions of dollars, relies almost entirely on a surprisingly small and vulnerable network: just 15 known international subsea cables. These vital conduits, stretching to international hubs such as Singapore and Hawaii, carry 99 per cent of the nation's data traffic. It is one of the many reasons NATO is working with its 'Indo-Pacific 4' partners – Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand. A NATO official tells me that the need to protect critical undersea infrastructure is a 'topic of increasing concern' in both the Euro-Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific. 'For this reason, we are sharing information and best practices about how we are going about it,' the official says. 'We also see potential for co-operation ... specifically in the area of technology development to allow us to better survey our critical undersea infrastructure.' With its blend of national contributions and off-the-shelf tech, the exercises are designed to deter further mischief, not through confrontation, but through visibility. The thinking is simple: if you can be seen, you can be deterred. Still, Task Force X is not without challenges. As with any move towards automation, there are questions around command authority, cyber vulnerabilities and even the ethics of allowing AI to classify potential threats. But few aboard Alliance seem bogged down in philosophical hand-wringing. The pace of experimentation is brisk. The political appetite, sharpened by recent attacks, is real. As I disembark under a steely Nordic sky, one thing is clear: the front lines of conflict are no longer just on land, sea or air. They are digital, invisible and, increasingly, underwater.
The Age
4 hours ago
- The Age
The Libs have been handed a golden opportunity. Now, watch them stuff it up
One of the great entertainments of political commentary in Australia over the past decade-and-a-bit has been speculating on what new and inventive way the Liberal Party will find to comprehensively bugger itself up. I can't help thinking this must have crossed Treasurer Jim Chalmers' mind as he fronted the National Press Club this week to announce that he will undertake a process to develop a new productivity agenda. Chalmers' speech was solid, but then so it should be after so many have said the same things so often to so little avail. His words and aspirations have been written for him many times over, sometimes with hope, other times with emotions ranging from dull rage to despair. Sometimes even by the Coalition. We need productivity reform, politicians all know we need it, the media all know they know we need it, yet no-one ever does it. There's a simple reason for that: it's hard. The treasurer dwelt in his speech on why it's hard. Reforming an economic system requires trade-offs. Some choices will cost some people. They may or may not be recompensed in the rejig. Chalmers doesn't want the media to simplify economic reform by explaining it in terms of 'winners and losers', as they do after each budget, but there will be winners and losers in the short, medium, or long term as a result of any new tax system. And, naturally, the opposition will do what the name says on the tin. It will oppose. Given the last years of Liberal shenanigans, the real question is how it chooses to do that. In one scenario, Sussan Ley leads a team which analyses and criticises the government's productivity proposals to ensure the best outcome for Australia and Australians. Should they choose this version of their own adventure, there will be plenty of material to tackle. The prime minister has already shown that he has no instinct for making business more efficient or even any understanding that a healthy economy relies on the private sector, creating new wealth instead of just shifting existing money around. In the first term of the Albanese government, the size of the public sector grew relative to the size of the private sector, so now each private employee is supporting more public sector salaries. Loading Then-employment minister Tony Burke passed through an industrial relations bill which makes it harder for businesses to scale up without locking themselves into costly arrangements. Meanwhile, the 'Future Made in Australia' slush fund has been 'picking winners' (code for government making decisions on industries it poorly understands) by investing in bringing in an overseas quantum technology firm rather than backing existing quantum technology firms – ahem – made in Australia. Labor is even trashing its own legacy by changing the rules on the superannuation system it forced people to contribute to, undermining trust that the money you lock away for retirement is really yours for later. It's hard to see how a government which made policies of this sort a priority and prefers the public to the private sector will back a productivity agenda which turns Australia around. But one of the great paradoxes of politics is that sometimes you need the party which is seen to be the touchy-feely side to deliver hard-nosed decisions. Think Labour prime minister Tony Blair in the UK, Democrat president Bill Clinton in the USA, or chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in Germany, all of whom delivered welfare reform in the face of their countries' badly designed benefits systems, which were creating disincentives to work.
