Immigration Strategy Needed to Address Population Growth Challenges in Australia
A new report suggests that Australia should establish immigration targets aimed at achieving a stable temporary population. This recommendation comes in response to the increasing number of non-permanent residents, which is placing significant strain on the country’s public services and housing market.
Data indicates that the proportion of temporary migrants in Australia has more than doubled in the last 15 years, escalating from 2.7% of the total population in 2010 to over 6% today.
In a comprehensive study, Alan Gamlen, director of the Australian National University Migration Hub, and emeritus professor Peter Macdonald emphasize that the emphasis on net overseas migration detracts from a more critical examination of the temporality issue in immigration policy.
Gamlen highlights that the lack of effective management of temporary migrant populations in recent decades has raised significant concerns regarding social cohesion and has intensified pressure on infrastructure and housing. This situation has led to fears surrounding “mass migration” and its broader implications.
The resurgence of international migration following the end of pandemic-related border closures has sparked discussions across developed nations about their capacity to manage swift population growth effectively. For instance, Canada initiated an extensive immigration overhaul in late 2024, which included capping the number of temporary immigrants to reduce their share from 7.6% of the population to 5%.
Currently, Canada is experiencing its first population decline since the 1940s, with experts noting that these policy changes have successfully alleviated pressure on housing costs.
While Gamlen acknowledges the lessons Australia could glean from Canada’s experience, he cautions against adopting a similarly hasty approach to immigration policy. He argues that Canada’s target was arbitrary and suggests that the rapid reduction of temporary immigrant numbers may be economically detrimental. Instead, he and Macdonald advocate for a balanced approach that manages temporary migration in line with Australia’s infrastructural capabilities.
They propose that Australia’s immigration framework should focus on a specified number of temporary migrants, with clear pathways to transition some temporary visa holders to permanent residency. Gamlen states that this approach ensures the number of temporary admissions correlates with the nation’s ability to support ongoing settlement through infrastructure development, thus avoiding the unintended consequences of a displaced guest worker population.
The core argument posits that immigration should not merely be reduced; rather, Australia needs a more effective strategy for managing transitional populations. The pivotal question is not simply about the appeal of net overseas immigration figures, but rather about how many individuals with temporary status the country can sustain effectively and sustainably.
