Why political diversity lags as ethnic diversity rises in Australia

An examination of immigration, demographics, media influence and electoral systems asks whether Australia’s political landscape is becoming less representative as diversity grows, writes Sheila Newman.

THERE IS GROWING public concern that Labor is maintaining very high immigration levels – despite strong and repeated public opposition, including the Marches for Australia – because it serves the party’s own long-term institutional and electoral interests.

Corporate Labor

If we view the Australian Labor Party as a large organisation with significant financial, union and factional interests in how Australia is governed, then its strong commitment to mass immigration becomes rational, even predictable. By expanding the population rapidly, Labor is effectively growing its likely future voter base: many migrant communities have historically leaned toward Labor once they become citizens, although Liberals also compete for the immigrant vote.

This is, unfortunately, standard organisational behaviour — a political party behaving like a corporation, advancing policies that expand its power and support base within the existing electoral rules.

Australia’s migrant communities are filling the gaps in refugee protection

From Iranian footballers to Hong Kong dissidents, recent cases show that protection in Australia often begins in civic and community networks before it reaches the state.

Many long-settled and native-born Australians feel they are being progressively displaced — physically through rapid population growth, housing shortages and strained infrastructure, and electorally through politically engineered demographic change that appears to favour one major party over the long term.

Labor has reinforced this dynamic by positioning itself aggressively as the champion of immigrants and multiculturalism. This is reflected in its promotion of expanded censorship, including new anti-hate speech and anti-racism laws and ASIO powers, alongside planning policies that prioritise accommodating rapid population growth – which is predominantly immigrant – over the needs of existing residents.

Approved hate speech

At the same time, elements within Labor have waged a cultural campaign against “baby boomers”, using them as a symbol for native-born Australians resistant to rapid demographic change and authoritarian planning. The baby boomer stigma also carries the threat of dispossession as “boomers” are deemed unworthy of retaining the houses they own.

This strident targeting of an identifiable elderly group and the implied threats of dispossession rage unfettered like approved hate speech. The hateful message is trumpeted inside and outside Parliament, by the property lobby and others whose products benefit from mass immigration-stimulated demand.

The loudest trumpet among them is, of course, the mainstream press, which markets Australian land and lifestyle globally through its associated dot-com brands — realestate.com.au and domain.com.au. Even the ABC now hosts a variety of lifestyle and property-focused programs.

Labor super-trawling

Despite growing public alarm, Labor seems to be hauling in a huge, fast-moving catch of immigration fish, before the political tide can turn, to rapidly install long-term electoral advantage. So, the fear is that, as large numbers of recent migrants eventually become citizens and gain the right to vote, they will disproportionately support Labor, helping to lock the party’s dominance in place for decades to come.

Research from The Australian Population Research Institute (TAPRI) adds important context. One paper (‘Is Australia ready for a Political Realignment?’, November 2025, revised 2026) shows that while most recent migrants are still temporary visa holders and cannot yet vote, citizenship rates will rise significantly in the coming years. Another analysis, ‘Surge to the Right’, links widespread anxiety over immigration, housing and cost of living to the surge in support for One Nation.

Tony Burke signals an immigration shift as Labor confronts migration reality

Australia’s immigration debate is shifting from slogans and scare campaigns toward the harder question of how migration should actually be managed.

The electoral system entrenches the uniparty

In the last Australian Election, Labor’s first preferences were around 30–34 per cent, but it still formed government thanks to preferences from Greens voters and voters for other minor parties, who had to fill out a certain number of preferences after their primary one. If Australia had multi-member constituencies, it might be easier to achieve more political diversity.

In France, however, we saw multiple parties effectively unite in July 2024 to support Emmanuel Macron’s party, Renaissance, in order to block the Rassemblement National (formerly the Front National) from winning power.

In Australia, Labor and the Liberals are more likely to encourage their voters to preference each other ahead of minor parties or Independents. In France, as in Australia, mass media play a huge part in how the public perceives candidates.

Mainstream media – including the ABC – reinforce the duopoly

Australia’s media landscape is among the most concentrated in the democratic world. A handful of companies (mainly News Corp and Nine Entertainment) dominate commercial outlets.

The publicly funded ABC, despite its charter requiring impartiality, largely operates within the same narrow framework — framing politics almost exclusively as a contest between Labor and the Coalition, while often amplifying progressive positions on immigration and demographics and marginalising dissenting views.

This concentration helps maintain the status quo by:

giving far less coverage to minor parties and independents, often portraying them as spoilers or unserious; and
setting the Overton window — deciding which views are treated as legitimate.

The combined effect: A self-reinforcing cycle

High immigration expands Labor’s potential future voter base. The electoral system and media environment then protect Labor’s position by making it almost impossible for Australian voters to achieve meaningful representation.

The censorship crackdown and expanded ASIO powers have a chilling effect on implied freedom of political comment, which is Australia's only real claim to free speech rights under the Constitution. The result is a feedback loop that entrenches the dominant party’s power and insulates it from public pushback.

Australia’s system is becoming increasingly effective at shielding the incumbent major party from serious electoral consequences, even when large sections of the population strongly disagree with its core policies.

Sheila Newman is a sociologist and author of various books on energy resources, population and housing policy systems and editor of https://candobetter.net.