Jacinta Price claims Labor is importing Indian voters

Migration claims about the Labor Government fall apart under scrutiny – the data tells a different story. Dr Abul Rizvi reports.

JACINTA PRICE'S comments about Labor manipulating the migration program to favour Indian migrants for political purposes have been repudiated by her leader, Sussan Ley. To some degree, she has walked back her claims but not apologised. But is there any basis to her claims?

Price was questioned about whether she thought people were worried about “the core number, or the type of migrants that are coming in”.

She said:

“It is definitely the core number. And of course, there is focus from this Government to be getting them from particular countries over others… Labor like to be able to ensure that they’re going to allow those in that would ultimately support their policies, their views, and vote for them as well.”

Price was asked if she believed the Government was actively running a migration program to bring in people open to their ideas and the Senator answered “absolutely”.

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.

She went on to say:

“This is Labor. Basically, it’s power at any cost. And we see that occur all over the place in terms of the way they conduct themselves…As we have seen, you yourself mentioned, that there is a concern with the Indian community, and only because there’s been large numbers, and we can see that reflected in the way the community votes for Labor at the same time.”

What Price did not explain was specifically how the Government was acting to favour migrants from certain backgrounds. Her approach of making incendiary comments – while providing no evidence – seems to reflect her affinity with the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement in the USA.

Price did later say:

“Australia maintains a longstanding and bipartisan non-discriminatory migration policy. Suggestions otherwise are a mistake… My remarks were made in a wide-ranging interview on ABC where I sought to highlight issues of uncontrolled mass migration and ruptures to social cohesion.”

She subsequently blamed the interviewer, Patricia Karvelas, and others in the media for misrepresenting her comments. A standard tactic used by politicians who have put their foot in it.

As it is likely she and her followers will continue to push the idea that Labor is manipulating the migration/citizenship system to favour certain groups, particularly Indian migrants, there is merit in looking at the facts.

For a migrant to be able to vote in Australia, they must first secure a permanent residence visa. At present, there are huge application backlogs for permanent visas and the Government has held the size of the permanent migration program in 2025-26 at the same level as in 2024-25 (that is, 185,000).

In other words, Government policy is itself holding back the number of people who secure permanent residence and thus the citizenship needed to be able to vote.

Each permanent resident must also meet the four-year residence requirement, pass the citizenship test and have their citizenship application processed. Having had their citizenship conferred on them, they can then apply to enrol to vote. Altogether, that is not the kind of quick process those alleging manipulation of the system are suggesting it is.

If Price was right about her allegations, there should have been a substantial shift in the portion of permanent migrants from India and then a shift in the portion of Indian migrants securing citizenship by conferral.

Senator Jacinta Price dumped from Liberal front bench over migrant comments

The Liberal frontbencher and MAGA enthusiast has been stood down after just four months in the role.

India has been the leading source of migrants to Australia every year since 2009-10, other than in 2020-21. It was overtaken by China in that year due to the Coalition Government deciding to reduce the size of the migration program at the same time as clearing a massive backlog in the Business Innovation and Investment Program (BIIP), which is dominated by applicants from China.

Was that a decision to favour migrants from China over India? I doubt it. The decision to start clearing the BIIP backlog was driven by pressure from certain investment advice companies and certain migrant agents (both of whom profit from these visas).

Peter Dutton, in fact, promised to again give such visas priority if elected. These visas have a very chequered history in Australia associated with money laundering and crime. It’s why Donald Trump loves these visas so much.

The portion and absolute number of migrants from India first peaked in 2012-13 (at 21.1% and 40,051) and again in 2015-16 (at 21.2% and 40,145). Was the Coalition at the time trying to bring in Indian migrants to vote for them? I doubt it.

Inflow of Indian migrants again increased in 2023-24 (26.2% and 49,848) and 2024-25 (26.1% and 48,326).

Were the outcomes in 2023-24 and 2024-25 due to decisions to favour Indian migrants or decisions to favour skill stream migrants outside the BIIP? Note that the vast majority of skill stream migrants enter via the employer-sponsored category and state/territory-nominated categories. Did the Labor Government tell employers and state/territory governments to favour Indian migrants? I doubt it.

The category where the Commonwealth Government has significant discretion is the points-tested skilled independent category. But in 2024-25, the size of that category was reduced to 16,900 from 30,375 in 2023-24. Why would Labor cut the category where it has the greatest discretion to target particular nationalities if that is what it wanted to do?

In 2024-25, the main occupations in the skilled independent category were nurses (1,467), early childhood teachers (951), civil engineering professionals (676) and carpenters and joiners (666); architects (605). Was the Government targeting these occupations, or was it targeting Indian migrants?

But securing permanent residence is not enough to be able to vote. The migrant must also secure citizenship.

The portion and number of Indian migrants securing citizenship by conferral (and thus being able to vote) have fallen from 22.3% in 2018-19 and 38,209 in 2019-20 to 13.9% and 23,015 in 2024-25. Indeed, in the last two financial years, New Zealand has overtaken India as the main source of migrants securing Australian citizenship.

In 2024-25, 33,103 New Zealand citizens were conferred Australian citizenship compared with 23,015 Indian migrants.

The fact is, Jacinta Price’s statements about Labor importing Indians to vote for them do not pass scrutiny. It's pure dog whistling.

Dr Abul Rizvi an Independent Australia columnist and a former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Immigration. You can follow Abul on Twitter @RizviAbul.