Supporting the (Hypothetical) Coalition’s Case Against Labor’s Immigration Policies, By Tom North

Australia's immigration policies under the Albanese Labor government have sparked heated debate, with critics arguing that they choose political gain over national interest. The Coalition, as highlighted in the Macrobusiness article, has a compelling case to challenge Labor's approach, particularly its alleged strategic use of Indian migration to bolster electoral support. This essay supports the argument that the Coalition should adopt a bold stance against Labor's immigration model, emphasising economic, cultural, and democratic concerns, while advocating for a significant reduction in immigration.

Economic Impacts of High Immigration

Australians have expressed widespread dissatisfaction with the current immigration-led economic model, as evidenced by multiple polls cited in the Macrobusiness article. For instance, 54% of respondents in surveys by the Australian Population Research Institute, Newspoll, and Lowy Institute believe immigration levels are too high, with 64% in an Essential poll stating that population growth is too rapid. Additionally, 65% of high-income earners and 77% of low-income earners, according to the Centre for Independent Studies, support cutting or pausing immigration until infrastructure catches up. These figures reflect a public consensus that high immigration strains resources and lowers living standards.

The economic downsides are clear: wage suppression, declining productivity, overcrowded public services, and a persistent housing crisis. The influx of migrants, particularly through agreements like the Australia-India Migration and Mobility Partnership Agreement and the Mechanism for Mutual Recognition of Qualifications, has flooded the labour market with low-skilled workers, undermining wages and job opportunities for Australians. The housing shortage, exacerbated by population growth outpacing supply, has led to skyrocketing rents and homelessness, as noted in related discussions on housing deficits. The Coalition can capitalise on these concerns by advocating for a policy that prioritises infrastructure development and economic stability over unchecked migration.

Political Gerrymandering and Electoral Strategy

The Macrobusiness article argues that Labor's immigration policies, particularly those favouring Indian migrants, are a deliberate attempt at electoral gerrymandering. Polls, such as one by Kos Samaris estimating that 85% of Indian migrants voted for Labor in the last federal election, suggest that Labor is leveraging diaspora voting patterns to secure marginal seats. The Australia-India agreements, signed by the Albanese government, facilitate this by easing migration pathways and recognising Indian qualifications, potentially flooding the labour market with workers who may not meet Australian standards.

This strategy raises concerns about fairness and sovereignty. By prioritising certain migrant groups, Labor risks alienating other communities and eroding the principle of a non-discriminatory migration program. The Coalition, as suggested, should counter this by adopting a firm stance, potentially led by figures like Jacinta Price, who has voiced concerns about the cultural and social impacts of rapid demographic changes. Her comments, though controversial, highlight a legitimate fear that unchecked migration could marginalise existing communities, including Indigenous Australians, and reshape Australia's cultural fabric in ways that choose political gain over national cohesion.

Cultural and Democratic Implications

The cultural argument against Labor's immigration policies centres on the preservation of Australia's sovereignty and democratic traditions. The Macrobusiness article describes Labor's approach as fostering a "one-party Labor state" influenced by foreign interests, specifically citing India and China. The Mechanism for Mutual Recognition of Qualifications, criticised for equating potentially substandard Indian degrees with Australian ones, risks lowering professional standards and entrenching a migrant underclass, which could fuel social tensions.

Moreover, the article points to the growing influence of migrant lobbies, including those from India and China, as a threat to Australia's liberal democratic traditions. The Coalition can argue that Labor's policies enable foreign governments to exert undue influence over Australian politics through diaspora communities, as seen in allegations of Beijing's coercion of Chinese-Australians. A zero-immigration policy, while extreme, could resonate with voters frustrated by these dynamics, signalling a commitment to prioritising Australian interests and restoring public trust in governance.

Strategic Opportunity for the Coalition

The Coalition's current soft stance on immigration has failed to win voter support, as evidenced by its electoral losses despite earlier expectations of victory. By contrast, a bold policy shift, such as advocating for a significant reduction or temporary pause in immigration, could galvanize the 54–77% of Australians who favour lower migration levels. Appointing a figure like Jacinta Price to lead immigration policy could amplify this message, leveraging her perspective as an Indigenous leader to frame high immigration as a modern "invasion" that disadvantages existing communities.

This approach would not only differentiate the Coalition from Labor but also address the public's economic and cultural concerns. The March for Australia, attended by diverse groups including Indigenous and other migrant communities, demonstrates that opposition to high immigration transcends racial lines, countering accusations of racism. The Coalition can frame its policy as a defence of all Australians, regardless of background, who seek affordable housing, fair wages, and a sustainable future.

Countering Labor's Narrative

Labor's reliance on the "racism" smear to deflect criticism of its immigration policies is a weak point the Coalition can exploit. By emphasising data-driven arguments, such as the economic strain of 1.3 million migrants over 2022–25 and the housing crisis, the Coalition can shift the narrative from identity politics to practical governance. Labor's agreements with India, perceived as prioritising one group over others, provide a clear example of divisive policymaking that the Coalition can contrast with a unified, Australia-first approach.

In conclusion, the Coalition has a strategic opportunity to challenge Labor's immigration policies by addressing the economic, cultural, and democratic concerns of Australians. By advocating for a significant reduction in immigration, led by a figure like Jacinta Price, the Coalition can appeal to the majority who favor lower migration while countering Labor's alleged gerrymandering. This bold stance, grounded in public sentiment and economic realities, could restore voter trust and position the Coalition as a defender of Australia's sovereignty and prosperity.

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2025/09/coalition-should-go-all-in-against-indian-albo/

"Coalition should go all-in against Indian Albo

Australians are fed up with the immigration-led economic model. It's in every poll.

Australian Population Research Institute: 54% want lower immigration;

Newspoll: 56% want lower immigration;

Essential: 54% believe Australia's population is growing too fast and 64% believe immigration is too high;

Lowy: 54% of people think the total number of migrants coming to Australia each year is too high;

Newspoll: 74% of voters support the Turnbull government's cut of more than 10% to the annual permanent migrant intake to 163,000 last financial year; and

CIS: 65% in the highest decile and 77% in the lowest believe that immigration should be cut or paused until critical infrastructure has caught up.

Australians are not racist. They have been more generous than any other people with their borders.

Australians want lower immigration because they have lived through more than a decade of the immigration-led economic model. They know it lowers living standards via wage suppression, wrecked productivity, crushloaded public services, housing permacrisis, ruined environment, and crime. They also know it because COVID gave them a glimpse of the alternative, and it's much better!

Now we can add gerrymandering to the list of immigration downsides as Labor uses Indians to marginalise everybody else.

Indian migrants voted strongly for Labor at the 2022 federal election:

Polster Kos Samaris estimated that 85% of Indian migrants voted for Labor at the recent federal election. Read here for further evidence.

Albo is clearly doing it on purpose. He signed the two worst labour market agreements with India in the history of Australia.

The Australia-India Migration and Mobility Partnership Agreement.

The Mechanism for Mutual Recognition of Qualifications.

It is fatuous to blame anybody but Labor for this, so bravo Jacinda Price. Why wouldn't an indigenous leader be pissed as waves of foreign peoples invade her nation all over again? Why doesn't the Fake Left jump up and down about that? Is this not Invasion Day 2.0?

The senator's suggestion that the Albanese government's migration program favoured some countries over others to win votes – with specific reference to the Indian community – threatens to inflict far more political damage to the Coalition than, for example, her ill-timed "Make Australia Great Again" rally cry during the May election.

Ley and other senior Liberals quickly denounced Price's statement and sought to patch up ties with the Indian community – including with a walk-through in Sydney's Harris Park, known as 'Little India'. Photograph: Bianca de Marchi/AAP
The senator's initial comments to the ABC were not only factually incorrect (Australia has a non-discriminatory migration program) but deeply hurtful to a large and growing diaspora community that the Liberals cannot afford to alienate if it wants to return to power.

Rubbish. They can afford to alienate them big time. And any number of other migrant interest groups, while they are at it. It is in the national interest that they do so.

Indian community whinging is not unique. It is a prime example of Australia losing control of its sovereignty, culture, and liberal democratic traditions. All migrant communities have active lobbies now. Including, notably, China.

Not coincidentally, the Chinese are another diaspora that Albo is misusing to gerrymander Australia. He has a horribly distorted foreign policy to suit Beijing, which coerces the local diaspora, and splits them from the LNP.

Neither LNP nor the nation should accept Albo's baleful vision of a one-party Labor state run from Delhi, Beijing, or Palestine.

Going softly on immigration has done nothing for the Coalition vote. It needs to go much harder. Indeed, if it does not do so, it will never see power again.

The LNP should use the example of Labor's Indian gerrymandering to announce a zero immigration policy. Put Price in charge of the immigration portfolio to do it.

Sure, it will engender debate and protest, and that will turn the tide to the LNP, as Albanese is rightly blamed for the underlying division that he is creating.