Without honest migration debate, Australia risks fuelling extremism

Australia must have a mature, nuanced debate on our immigration future, placing the emphasis back toward environmental stewardship and sustainability, write Michael Bayliss and Mark Allen.

AUSTRALIA URGENTLY NEEDS a platform to discuss migration policy that is rational, inclusive and firmly separated from the scapegoating of migrants. Otherwise, when concerns about policy are conflated with prejudice, the narrative is handed to the far Right.

Blurring these lines has empowered populist politics across Western democracies. Donald Trump’s rise in the United States and Nigel Farage’s enduring influence in the UK show what happens when mainstream politics dismisses legitimate concerns. For example, Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” remark dismissed voters instead of engaging with their fears, helping to drive the narrative in Donald Trump’s favour.

Australia cannot afford to repeat these mistakes. Many voters’ concerns are not inherently racist; they often reflect real pressures on housing, infrastructure and wages. Ignoring or ridiculing them leaves the field open for those who thrive on division.

Don't blame migrants for the housing crisis, blame the millionaires

While fascists scapegoat migrants, it’s the landlords and politicians hoarding wealth who are fuelling the housing crisis.

We can avoid polarisation on the issue. In fact, Denmark has shown that a third way is possible. The social-democratic government in Denmark has shown how to neutralise the far Right by engaging with community concerns about immigration, rather than ignoring them.

Despite persistent community concern, our political class and mainstream media routinely sidestep the issue of how large Australia’s population should grow and at what rate. Yet a recent survey found 86 per cent of Western Sydney voters want immigration levels reduced. And as the nation heads toward 30 million and beyond, no progressive leader is championing an evidence-based debate.

A rational discussion would establish clear guidelines for sustainable population growth and, crucially, at what point Australia’s population should be allowed to stabilise. This will give us the breathing space to formulate a strategy whereby the economy can diversify away from a reliance upon perpetual expansion towards a more Steady State model, especially at a time when the planet is hitting multiple limits to growth.

Economist Ken Henry, former Treasury secretary, warned as far back as Kevin Rudd’s leadership that, without building entirely new cities, Australia’s carrying capacity might be closer to 15 million. Whether one agrees or not, his point underscores that “business as usual” is not sustainable.

In the almost two decades since, Australia has “managed” growth through more of the same rapid urban sprawl and often hurried densification, leaving a legacy of sub-standard development. Because densification is a relatively slow process, state authorities in Perth have recently thrown their arms in the air and acknowledged that further land releases on the urban fringe are now the default option. All of this despite Perth being one of the worst examples of urban sprawl in the world.

This is why the claim that housing stress is a problem of insufficient supply rather than excessive demand is an oversimplification. There are limits to how much supply can realistically keep up, especially if we aim for well-planned, liveable communities with upfront infrastructure in place. Calls to simply “cut red tape” therefore ignore the realities of planning and environmental impact. Building indefinitely to meet endless demand is neither economically nor ecologically sound.

Neo-nazis turn anti-immigration marches into a showcase for violence

Australia’s Far-Right hijacked the August 31 rallies nationwide, using them as displays of intimidation.

As a 2023 report from Sustainable Population Australia warned:

‘An accumulation of ill-advised policy measures (e.g., negative gearing, reduction in capital gains tax, and first home buyer grants) have combined with accelerated population growth to create a perfect housing storm.’

Some argue that migration is falling compared to previous years, but this overlooks the larger trend. Australia remains on a trajectory to exceed 30 million within a decade and continue growing. Adding the equivalent of an Adelaide every three years or so (taking fluctuations into account) means that if every vacant dwelling were to be filled, the reprieve would last only a few years before pressure resumed.

An honest debate would acknowledge the role of millionaire landlords while also acknowledging the role of billion-dollar corporate and institutional players. For example, property giants such as Meriton and peak bodies like the Property Council openly lobby for higher migration to fuel growth.

The connection between population growth and housing inflation is accepted as an undeniable fact by almost everyone knowledgeable about the property industry. For progressives who reflexively defend current settings, this is a glaring blind spot because migration policy in Australia today is, at its core, a neoliberal policy.

A platform for honest discussion would not only quickly diminish the impact of far-right rhetoric but would also ensure that we do not abandon compassion or shut the door on newcomers. Rather than dismiss population growth as a legitimate concern, it would work to put it in its proper context.

Anti-immigration rallies reflect a failure of both major parties

Decades of political ducking and weaving on migration policy have fuelled public anger, leaving space for extremists to hijack the debate.

This means integrating migration policy into broader reform, including much-needed tax reform, laws to discourage land banking, robust vacant property levies and smarter urban planning. All of this, coupled with a national population strategy that respects environmental, social and economic limits.

Failing to create a platform for moderate, nuanced discussion on population policy creates space for extremism to develop. When people cannot voice concerns in mainstream forums without being accused of bigotry, resentment festers.

Standing up to fascism means more than condemning its symbols; it requires removing the grievances that fascism exploits. Listening to working Australians about the pressures they face is not pandering; it is the foundation of social cohesion.

Australia needs leaders who are willing to separate principled debate on migration from scapegoating migrants. Instead, the focus needs to be on housing affordability, infrastructure, environmental limits and quality of life. We owe newcomers fairness and we owe communities honesty. An honest discussion would also acknowledge the important role that foreign aid plays in distributing resources more equitably and the importance of having a level of migration that, at the very leas,t would compensate for our lower than replacement birthrate.

A transparent, evidence-based approach would allow these perspectives to be aired while protecting migrants from blame. Crucially, it would restore confidence that population policy serves the public interest rather than narrow corporate agendas. By creating a space for thoughtful discussion, Australia can undercut far-right rhetoric and chart a future that is both welcoming and sustainable. Anything less risks repeating mistakes that we are seeing unfold overseas.

Michael Bayliss is the communications manager for Sustainable Population Australia and co-founder of Population, Permaculture and Planning. You can follow him on Twitter @Miketbay83 and Sustainable Population Australia HERE.

Mark Allen is an environmental campaigner based in Albany WA with a professional background in town planning sustainability and journalism.