Albo’s Immigration Surge: The Multicultural Asianisation Mirage, By James Reed and Paul Walker

Australia's immigration policy under the Albanese government has spiralled into an unsustainable surge, with 437,440 migrants arriving in the year to March 2025, far surpassing the Treasury's forecast of 335,000 and mocking Labor's pledge to cap it at 260,000. This blog piece argues that the unchecked immigration explosion, coupled with a flawed multicultural framework, threatens Australia's economic stability, social cohesion, and national identity. Far from fostering diversity, the heavy reliance on migration from India and China risks creating cultural enclaves and political manipulation, undermining the very unity multiculturalism claims to champion.

The economic case for mass immigration, filling labour shortages and driving growth, collapses under scrutiny when numbers soar 30% above projections. Australia's infrastructure, housing, and public services are buckling under the strain of 437,440 new arrivals in a single year. In Sydney and Melbourne, where most migrants settle, median house prices exceed $1.5 million, and rental vacancy rates hover below 1%. This influx fuels a housing crisis that locks young Australians out of homeownership while inflating living costs for all.

Public services fare no better. Hospitals in high-migration areas like Parramatta face longer wait times, schools are overcrowded, and public transport struggles to keep pace. Many migrants, particularly international students and those on bridging visas, fill low-skill jobs rather than addressing critical skill shortages, undermining the narrative that immigration universally boosts productivity. The economic cost of this mismanagement, sprawling urban congestion and strained resources, falls squarely on Australians, who see their quality of life erode while Labor touts multiculturalism as a panacea.

Australia's multicultural ideal, celebrated as a harmonious blend of cultures and such propaganda, is unravelling under the weight of concentrated migration. Over the past decade, the Indian-born population has surged from 411,240 to 916,330, and the Chinese-born population has grown to 700,120, making them the second and third largest migrant groups. This lopsided reliance on two source countries, as Macrobusiness chief economist Leith van Onselen warns, fosters ethnic enclaves rather than integration. Suburbs like Harris Park (45.4% Indian-born) and Hurstville (47% Chinese ancestry) are becoming culturally insular, with limited interaction between communities.

Multiculturalism, in its current form, chooses diversity over shared values, risking social fragmentation. The Daily Mail article's comparison to London, where ethnic-based political parties have emerged, is a stark warning. If Australia continues to import most of its migrants from one or two countries, we may see similar outcomes, minority parties advocating for narrow interests, such as expanded parental visas, at the expense of national cohesion. This is not diversity but division, cloaked in progressive rhetoric. True integration requires a balanced migration policy that encourages assimilation into a shared Australian identity, not the creation of parallel societies.

The political implications of this immigration surge are deeply troubling. Labor's electoral gains in seats like Parramatta (8.9% swing, 70.2% two-party vote in Harris Park) and Bennelong (9.34% swing, 68% in Lane Cove) reflect a growing reliance on Indian and Chinese voters. Van Onselen's assertion that Labor is "incentivised" to maintain high immigration to secure a long-term voter base is chilling. With citizenship attainable after three years of permanent residency, this surge effectively stacks the electoral deck, turning marginal seats into Labor strongholds.

This strategy resembles a deliberate gerrymander, where immigration policy is weaponised to entrench political power. The risk of ethnic-based minor parties, as seen in other nations, looms large. These groups will pressure Labor to adopt policies favouring specific communities, sidelining broader Australian interests. Multiculturalism, in this context, becomes a tool for political manipulation, undermining democratic fairness and eroding trust in governance. By valuing electoral advantage over national unity, Labor betrays the very principles it claims to uphold, but never has for most of the party's existence.

The current multicultural model, far from celebrating diversity, risks eroding Australia's cultural foundations. A nation's identity thrives on shared values, history, and civic cohesion, not on fragmented communities with competing loyalties. The unchecked influx from a few countries threatens to dilute the Anglo-Australian traditions, already under attack, that have shaped the nation's stability and prosperity. As we've discussed at the blog, similar trends in other Western nations, like the UK, show how multiculturalism can erode cultural cohesion when assimilation is abandoned.

To address this, Australia must cap immigration at sustainable levels, diversify source countries, and choose migrants who align with national needs and values. Infrastructure investment must match population growth to ease economic pressures. Most critically, immigration policy should be insulated from political opportunism, with transparent criteria that serve all Australians, not just one party's voter base. Easier said than done, but that is the real battle now, and other concerns are secondary. Economic conditions come and go, but immigration mistakes are forever.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14741559/Immigration-Anthony-Albanese-Labor-Liberal.html

"Immigration is likely to remain at high levels following Anthony Albanese's landslide election win - amid claims large numbers of Indian and Chinese migrants will give Labor a permanent voting bloc.

Labor promised to ease immigration before the last election but in the year to March, 437,440 migrants came to Australia on a permanent and long-term basis.

This was significantly higher than Treasury's March Budget forecast of 335,000 for 2024-25, with the Australian Bureau of Statistics data casting doubt on Labor's promise to reduce it to 260,000 during the upcoming financial year.

Macrobusiness chief economist Leith van Onselen said the high concentration of Chinese and Indian voters was likely to keep giving Labor a solid, long-term voting bloc, helping it to keep having safe seats in Sydney and Melbourne.

'If we're getting so much migration from one or two countries - India followed by China - you risk creating voting blocs,' he told Daily Mail Australia.

This could lead to new minor parties based on ethnicity being created, that preferenced Labor, forcing it to adopt their policy demands, with international students already allowed to bring a spouse to Australia.

'If this keeps going on in the next 10 years, we'll have a situation where it could be like London,' he said.

'We'll start getting voting blocs form where they might actually form an Indian political party that lobbies for interests that are favourable to Indians, whether it's more parental visas ... they'll create voting blocs and lobby groups that lobby for their interests but not necessarily in the greater interests of Australia.

'If we're supposed to support this multiculturalism and diversity and all this other stuff, you don't go about that by importing most of your people from one or two countries, you should be spreading the load.'

During the past decade, the number of Australian residents born in Indian has more than doubled from 411,240 to 916,330, making it second now only to England.

The number of Chinese-born residents has surged from 466,510 to 700,120, putting it in third place ahead of New Zealand.

The Labor-held seat of Parramatta went from being marginal to ultra-safe with an 8.9 per cent swing to the ALP, giving it 62.6 per cent of the two-party vote.

But in the Parramatta city booth, Labor had 70.2 per cent of the vote after preferences.

It catered to voters at Harris Park, a short walk away, where 45.4 per cent of residents were born in India.

'The Indian diaspora in Australia overwhelmingly votes Labor over the Coalition,' Mr van Onselen said.

Within this same electorate, the Epping polling booth, a former Liberal stronghold, delivered Labor 75.7 per cent of the vote after preferences.

Macrobusiness chief economist Leith van Onselen said the high concentration of Chinese and Indian voters was likely to keep giving Labor a solid voting bloc, helping it to keep having safe seats into future in Sydney and Melbourne.

In this suburb, 40.4 per cent of people have Chinese ancestry and 19.7 per cent of them were born in China.

'Unfortunately, Labor is incentivised to maintain this,' Mr van Onselen said.

Labor enjoyed a massive 9.34 per cent swing to it in Bennelong on Sydney's lower north shore, turning it from an ultra marginal electorate, with no ALP buffer, into a safe seat in a traditional Liberal heartland.

The Lane Cove booth, another former Liberal stronghold, gave Labor a massive 68 per cent of the two-party vote and in this suburb, 14 per cent of people have Chinese ancestry, more than double the national average of 5.5 per cent.

The Chinese vote is also high in seats Labor won off the Liberal Party.

Labor candidate Zhi Soon won Banks in south-west Sydney with a five per cent swing to him.

Within this electorate, the ALP won Hurstville with 60 per cent of the two-party vote in a suburb where 47 per cent of residents have Chinese ancestry.

In Melbourne, Labor candidate Gabrielle Ng won the eastern suburbs seat of Menzies off the Liberal Party with a small 0.67 per cent swing.

But in the Box Hill polling booth, there was a bigger 2.85 per cent swing in a suburb where 39 per cent of residents have Chinese ancestry.

Mr van Onselen said high immigration, including a large number of students on bridging visas hoping to stay longer in Australia, had created longer-term political advantages for one side of politics.

It only takes three years to become a citizen with voting rights after being a permanent resident.

High immigration was likened to a political gerrymander where a political party manipulates electorates to stay in power.

'It's a longer-term gerrymander - this is why they're incentivising the big Australia policy because they're basically sandbagging their supporter base for the long term,' he said.