Don’t let the politics of fear hollow our migration program

Migration has always been a pragmatic lever for Australia — a way to fill skills shortages, support businesses and grow the economy. Yet it is also an issue that attracts easy rhetoric and quick political gains. That is why recent reminders from across the political spectrum — including South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas urging both sides not to enter a race to the bottom with One Nation, and opinion voices insisting the correct response to today’s economic pressures is to preserve a strong migration program — should be treated seriously. The argument in favour of retaining a robust migration program is straightforward and rooted in the nation’s interests. As commentators have noted, the right policy response to present economic challenges and future opportunities is to preserve migration, not retrench from it. For employers and universities, access to skilled migrants helps fill roles that are otherwise scarce. For the public purse, newcomers contribute through taxes, consume local services and, often, start businesses that employ Australians. That does not mean migration is without strains. Communities need support to integrate new arrivals; housing supply, school places and health services must keep pace with population growth. Sensible policy does not ignore these pressures — it plans for them. But abandoning a well-managed migration program because of short-term political advantage is the worst kind of penny-wise, pound-foolish approach. Populist calls to slash numbers may sound hard-headed, but they risk hollowing out industries and leaving employers scrambling for staff at a time when targeted skills are in demand. Equally worrying is the prospect of politics forcing policy reversals that don’t match economic realities. If both major parties shift to appease populist impulses, Australia will lose a competitive edge in a world where skilled labour is mobile and nations compete for investment. Migration policy is not merely about numbers on a page; it shapes the character of communities, the capacity of hospitals and schools, and the vibrancy of regional towns that have revitalised through newcomers taking up local jobs and opening businesses. The public conversation needs honesty. Preserving a strong migration program means admitting there are trade-offs and planning to meet them: more targeted regional settlement to ease metropolitan pressure, investments in infrastructure, and clearer pathways for skills recognition so migrants are not underemployed. These are management choices, not excuses for scaremongering. Leaders on both sides should resist the temptation to chase easy headlines. Peter Malinauskas’s call for restraint is a timely reminder that principled policy often looks boring on the nightly news, yet it is the foundation of long-term prosperity. Australia’s future depends on getting this right: not by pandering to fear, but by designing migration settings that meet economic needs and support cohesive communities. Preserving a strong, carefully managed migration program is not a politically risky stance — it is a necessary one for an Australia that wants to remain prosperous and open in a competitive world.