Defending Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price Against Greg Sheridan’s Criticisms, By James Reed
Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has faced sharp criticism from Greg Sheridan in The Australian for her comments on Indian migration, with Sheridan labelling them damaging to the Liberal Party's electoral prospects. While Price's remarks, suggesting Labor prioritises Indian migrants to bolster its vote, were controversial and led to her issuing a clarification, Sheridan's attack is unfair and overlooks the broader context of her concerns. I defend Price's right to raise legitimate questions about migration patterns and electoral strategy, arguing that her comments, reflect valid concerns about demographic shifts and political motivations, not racism. It also challenges Sheridan's framing by questioning whether India would tolerate similar migration dynamics and highlights the double standards in accusations of prejudice.
During an ABC Afternoon Briefing interview on September 3, 2025, Senator Price suggested that Labor's migration policies favour groups, specifically mentioning the Indian community, who are likely to vote for them. She stated, "There is a concern with the Indian community, because there's been large numbers and we can see that reflected in the way that the community votes for Labor." Price quickly clarified that Australia maintains a non-discriminatory migration policy and admitted her comments were a "mistake," emphasising her concern was about migration volume, not the migrants themselves.
Sheridan argues that Price's comments were a strategic blunder, alienating Indian Australians, a growing demographic of over two million, who he claims are "natural Coalition voters" due to their conservative values. He accuses her of fuelling division and undermining the Liberal Party's appeal. However, this critique ignores the evidence supporting Price's underlying concern: the potential for migration policies to influence electoral outcomes.
A Prima Facie Case for Price's Concerns
Price's comments, though clumsily articulated, raise a legitimate question about whether Labor's migration policies could be shaped by electoral strategy. Data supports the notion that Indian Australians, particularly recent migrants, lean toward Labor. A 2025 ABC report cited a RedBridge poll indicating that 85% of Australians of Indian ancestry voted for Labor in the last election. Indian migration has also risen significantly, comprising 14% of total migration in the past three years, up from 10% pre-2020. This increase coincides with Labor's control of federal government, which maintained a permanent migration target of 185,000 for 2025 despite Coalition calls for reduction.
While there's no direct evidence that Labor deliberately targets Indian migrants to "cook electoral seats," the correlation between migration trends and voting patterns is a valid topic for discussion. Political parties have historically considered demographic impacts on elections. For example, Western Sydney electorates with high Indian populations, such as Parramatta, have seen Labor strengthen its hold. Price's point, though poorly framed, highlights a prima facie case that migration policies could disproportionately benefit one party, especially in marginal seats. Dismissing this as "stupid" ignores the strategic realities of politics, where voter demographics are a constant consideration.
Not Racism, But Policy Critique
Sheridan's accusation that Price's comments were racially charged is an overreach. Price explicitly stated, "This is not about the migrants themselves … I love our Australian migrants …" Her focus was on migration volume and its impact on infrastructure, housing, and services, issues widely acknowledged across the political spectrum. Net overseas migration reached 341,000 in 2024, down from 538,000 in 2022–23, but still strains urban resources. Price's singling out of Indian migrants was necessary, but her clarification emphasized a non-discriminatory stance, aligning with Australia's bipartisan migration policy.
Accusing Price of racism assumes intent that isn't evident in her broader statements. Her comments reflect frustration with Labor's migration management, not prejudice against Indian Australians. Sheridan's claim that she alienated a "natural Coalition voter base" oversimplifies Indian voting behavior. While Indian Australians may value family and tradition, their voting patterns are not monolithic, and recent trends show a Labor preference, possibly due to economic or social policies.
Would India Tolerate Similar Dynamics?
To test the fairness of Sheridan's critique, consider a hypothetical: Would India tolerate a migration policy that disproportionately brought in white immigrants perceived to favour a specific political party? India's immigration policies are highly restrictive, with citizenship tightly controlled under the Citizenship Act of 1955, amended in 2019 to prioritise certain religious groups, which would therefore be "racist" by Sheridan's criterion. India has no history of mass immigration comparable to Australia's, and public discourse often scrutinises foreign influence. If a significant influx of white immigrants were seen to shift electoral outcomes, say, favouring a party like the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), it's likely Indian politicians and media would raise alarms, much as Price did. Or, worse.
This comparison highlights a double standard. Price's comments, while sound reflect a concern about electoral integrity that would be uncontroversial in other democratic contexts. Sheridan's outrage seems selective, ignoring that migration debates often involve frank discussions of demographic impacts. India's own policies suggest a nation protective of its cultural and political identity, yet Price is vilified for questioning similar dynamics in Australia.
Sheridan's Misplaced Focus
Sheridan's broader argument, that the Liberal Party risks becoming a Farage-style populist outfit, is a strawman. Price's comments do not signal a populist turn but rather a critique of policy execution. Her leadership in the Voice referendum, which Sheridan praises, demonstrates her ability to engage on principle, not populism. His call for her to "master" her defence industry portfolio, ignores her broader role as a senator addressing constituent concerns, including migration's impact on infrastructure. Sheridan's suggestion that she emulate Bob Hawke's discipline, overlooks the modern political landscape, where outspokenness often shapes public debate.
Sheridan also exaggerates the electoral damage. While Indian Australians expressed hurt, as noted by the Indian Cultural Society of Darwin, Price's clarification and Opposition Leader Sussan Ley's outreach to the community mitigate long-term fallout. The Liberal Party's challenge is less about Price's comments and more about articulating a coherent migration policy that balances economic needs with infrastructure capacity.
Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price's comments on Indian migration were timely, but Greg Sheridan's condemnation as "inexplicably stupid" and damaging is unfair. Price raised a valid concern about migration patterns and electoral strategy, supported by data showing Indian voters' Labor leanings and increased migration under the current government. Accusations of racism are unfounded, given her clarification Aboriginal background. Comparing Australia's debate to India's restrictive immigration policies reveals a double standard in criticising Price. Rather than vilifying her, the Liberal Party should refine its migration stance, addressing legitimate concerns about volume and impact, but are too intertwined with globalism to do so. Price's voice remains vital, and Sheridan's attack risks silencing a principled leader for saying what needs to be said but is suppressed.
Some items of interest on this topic:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14662611/Indians-set-overtake-Brits-Aussie-migrants.html
Jayant Bhandari, himself an Indian, giving him the multicult right to write, has a different point of view to Sheridan; perhaps the two should debate?
https://www.amren.com/features/2024/12/india-its-worse-than-you-think/
Comments