A migration ‘breather’ might sound appealing. But economically, it’s a shocker

2 weeks ago 3

Opinion

September 4, 2025 — 5.00am

As people filled the streets across major cities at the weekend’s March for Australia protests, a couple of common themes and demands were raised when it came to national migration levels.

Many protesters said it’s time to “send them back”, which was jarring to hear in a nation that is literally built on migration, while others promoted a five-year pause on immigration.

Protesters wave flags as they march against immigration.

It’s unclear whether any of those parroting these lines actually put their mind to the economic implications of their calls, or bothered to look at the numbers underlying our population growth. It was more Dennis “the vibe” Denuto than Temperance “Bones” Brennan.

Because while freezing migration levels or loading up outward-bound planes with fresh migrants might sound good to some when heard in a chant or read on a placard, as an economic policy, it’s a shocker.

The argument for a pause is that the country needs a breather from the sharp lift in net overseas migration that’s occurred in recent years. Between 2019 and 2024, 1.364 million migrants – in net terms – made Australia home. That figure includes the early stages of COVID when, for the first time since the end of World War II, there was an outflow of net migrants. It’s also worth noting that the government is predicting the rate of net overseas migration will ease over coming years (it has already begun to slow, despite what some shock jocks have suggested).

No matter which way you put it, though, 1.364 million is still a lot of people. And without context, it’s understandable that some may be alarmed by the figures.

But those demanding a five-year migration pause are focused on those coming in, not those who leave. In 2024, for instance, more than 254,000 people permanently departed Australia.

Too many people have forgotten the surge in prices and the difficulty of getting decent services caused, in part, by the COVID-era effective ban on migrants. Unemployment fell to its lowest level in almost 50 years, which prompted a sharp lift in wages (and prices and interest rates) as businesses struggled to find workers to make your takeaway coffee or check your pet’s teeth. It was that lift in wages, prices and interest rates that contributed to the cost-of-living crisis that angered many – including those who marched on the weekend.

What those who want to either undo migration or put it on hold should remember is that migrants account for up to a fifth of our healthcare workforce. From staffing aged care centres to doctors in regional centres, getting rid of migrants means responsibility for looking after your elderly parents will fall on you, and that seeing a GP will become even harder than it already is.

Waiting on that Uber driver or DoorDash delivery person to supply your Indian takeaway? The food will get cold by the time they finally make it to your place, and it’ll probably cost you extra too.

Even in more valuable occupations, migrants are very highly represented. Around 23 per cent of workers in the financial sector are migrants. That partly reflects the fact that migrants are better educated, with 27 per cent of migrants holding a post-graduate qualification compared to 15 per cent across the entire population.

Housing is also a major point of tension. In a story as old as time, existing residents see new neighbours with non-Anglo surnames and accuse them of creating the dysfunctional property market.

While a large increase in residents without a lift in housing supply does put pressure on property prices, when Australia’s borders were locked down during COVID and populations dropped, house prices soared.

In Melbourne, the city shed around 87,000 residents, while the median house price surged almost 22 per cent (or $158,000). In Sydney, the jump was 40 per cent (or $377,500), despite the city losing 35,000 residents. If house price growth was only due to population growth, this should not have happened.

Taking natural population growth into account (births minus deaths, which last year fell to about 105,000), a migration freeze wouldn’t offer a breather, it would lead to depopulation. And a world where the number of people shrinks means there will be less tax revenue to pay for the goods and services required by those who remain, and fewer customers for local businesses (and fewer staff).

While Australia’s population – currently north of 27.5 million – is growing, parts of the country are losing residents.

Of the 547 council areas tracked by the ABS, 119 have shrunk since 2019. Many are remote centres, such as Mount Isa in Queensland, but it’s also going on in regional communities including Swan Hill and Corangamite in Victoria, and NSW centres like Armidale and Cowra.

In our cities, council areas including Brimbank in western Melbourne and the Sydney eastern suburb of Woollahra have also lost residents over the past five years. None of those depopulating communities would argue all’s well on the economic front.

But there’s a social fallout to all of this, too. Mount Isa has struggled to keep afloat its famous rodeo, while football teams like the Adelong-Batlow Bears and the Walla Walla Hoppers no longer exist.

Actively trying to “send them back” is even more fraught. Are we talking about the most recent arrivals, or do we introduce some kind of migration lottery to determine who has to walk the population plank?

Currently, Japan is facing an utter fiscal disaster, where government debt is 270 per cent of GDP. China is facing the largest depopulation of any country outside ancient history. Thankfully, Australia is nowhere close to this yet. But an end to immigration, even for a short period, will have substantial economic and budget repercussions.

And the irony of this is that the people who feel compelled to march in the streets because they’re unhappy with our economic standard of living are the very same people who would be worse off if there were a freeze.

Shane Wright is senior economics correspondent.

The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.