It's time to slash net overseas migration, so spare us your growth and diversity lectures before we suffer the same fate as the UK
Not only is the maths on this mind boggling but good luck trying to speak out against the ethos of our much-vaunted Big Australia super speed migration policy pioneered by former PM Kevin Rudd.
You'll be dismissed as a racist, a xenophobe and stuck wistfully in the 1960s when those of white Anglo-descent were the majority and everyone drove a Holden built at the Elizabeth plant in South Australia.Let's for a minute consider the data.
In March 2024, our population hit 27.1 million and according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 83 per cent of the 615,300 increase came from net overseas migration.
Births and deaths, classed as 'natural increase' accounted for the other 17 per cent.And in regard to the numbers released this week, there's no wriggle room to argue that it's good news for young Aussies already resigned to never owning their own home.
In plain speaking, if your population grows faster than your ability to house it, rents explode and housing supply crashes.
Everyone suffers, ultimately.
PM Anthony Albanese's government had promised 1.2 million homes in five years.
According to this week's State of the Housing System 2025 report, that plan is now a fantasy because we'll miss the target by at least 260,000 homes.
Meanwhile, our net overseas migration exceeds 500,000 people a year.
To keep up with population growth driven by immigration, industry experts say Australia must build around 240,000 new homes each year.With each migrant household averaging 2.5 people, the result here is catastrophic.
We're reportedly going backwards by more than 1000 homes every single week.
Meanwhile the PM chose his address at the National Press Club on Tuesday to finally admit what the rest of us have complained about for years.
Endless regulation has made it next to impossible to build or buy a home in this country.
Planning laws, heritage overlays, environmental assessments and zoning restrictions might make sense on their own but stacked together?
Australia needs to take a pickaxe to net overseas migration until our housing supply catches up to save us from the deepening housing crisis, rising homelessness and a strained health service that is pummelling the UK, writes Louise Roberts. Picture: John Grainger/News Corp
It's a bureaucratic quagmire that sinks housing before a single brick is slathered with concrete and laid.
In other words, getting a project off the ground is now so complicated and expensive, it's no wonder the country is in the middle of a housing crisis.
Sure, about time someone in Canberra said this out loud but why not go further and admit we need a housing-first migration policy too to help fix this crisis?
Australia's immigration program should serve the national interest and not those of universities or developers chasing cheap labour.
A flood of student or temporary visa holders puts immediate strain on the housing market long before they start making a real 'impact' on the economy.
Housing is a fundamental right not a high-end privilege.
But thanks to years of inaction from both sides of politics, owning a home has become a fugazi with first-home buyers locked out while governments tinker around the edges.
Also, criticising immigration policy is not racist.
The debate is about capacity and fairness, not culture or ethnicity.Conflating the two is dishonest because this isn't about 'closing the borders'.
It's about calibrating immigration to match infrastructure and housing capacity.
We don't have to look far for proof that mass migration without infrastructure planning leads to disaster.In the financial year ending June 2023, the UK recorded record-high net migration of more than 670,000 people.
The result?
A deeper housing crisis, rising homelessness and an even more strained National Health Service.
The Office for Budget Responsibility said high immigration levels are not improving per capita living standards.
It's no surprise that they've started slashing visas and tightening rules for dependents.Even Canada, revered as a model of open immigration, is now dramatically reducing its student visa intake and migration after backlash from citizens.
Surely it is time to slash net overseas migration here until housing supply catches up.
We don't need a lecture about growth and diversity.
If we want a fair go especially for young Aussies, we must have the courage to say that our nation is full, for now.
Louise Roberts is a journalist and editor who has worked as a TV and radio commentator in Australia, the UK and the US. Louise is a winner of the Peter Ruehl Award for Outstanding Columnist in the NRMA Kennedy Awards for Excellence in Journalism and has been shortlisted in other awards for her opinion work
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
‘Tweedledee and Tweedledum': Albanese and Wong are ‘putting stress' on Australia-US alliance
Sky News host Steve Price discusses Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong's 'slack-jawed' approach to Palestinian recognition and how this move has put stress on the Australia-US alliance. 'I am referring to the slack-jawed way our leader has decided to reward the terror group Hamas with the decision to recognise a Palestinian state with a visit to the UN,' Mr Price said. 'One can only wonder at the tone of the phone calls between other left-leaning leaders like France's Macron and the UK's Starmer in the lead-up to this. 'So, here we have Tweedledee and Tweedledum, Albo and Wong, courting votes from the Harbour Bridge march … and the Greens putting stress on the US alliance to support a fanciful notion that no one … in the Middle East thinks is ever going to happen.'
Sydney Morning Herald
3 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The one thing America could learn from us
A few weeks ago I watched as protesters braved the rain to cross the Sydney Harbour Bridge in a March for Humanity, calling for aid to Gaza. Among the Palestinian flags, one image stood out: the Indigenous flag, symbolising a shared history of dispossession. This week Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced that Australia will next month recognise a Palestinian state at the UN. These developments remind us that identity cannot be separated from politics. At a time when democracies elsewhere are fracturing under the weight of polarisation, Australia's institutional resilience should embolden us to embrace our differences more openly in political discourse – not frighten us. As an Australian studying in the US during both of Trump's presidential victories I saw first hand how identities can be politicised to fracture a society. After the October 7 Hamas attacks I witnessed, as a graduate student, how Harvard students retreated into ideological silos, avoiding dialogue with those whose identities they perceived to be at odds with their own. Australia feels different – partly because of how our political system is structured. Identity weighs less heavily on our social conscience, but perhaps that's why it's so often ignored. Identity politics refers to the idea that our race, gender, religion or class shapes our political views. Over time it has often been framed as divisive. Peter Dutton, after the 2023 Voice referendum defeat, said the result was a rejection of 'the madness of identity politics'. But his own loss in the 2025 election might suggest otherwise. A wave of post-election commentary emphasised the Liberal Party's need to better reflect 'modern Australia', with female representation highlighted as one of the most glaring absences in the party room. Loading Australia's electoral system structurally limits the worst elements of polarisation caused by identity politics. Unlike the US, where turnout hovers around 60 per cent, Australia's compulsory voting system ensures broad participation and fosters a more centrist politics. Our Westminster system means Australian voters elect a party to govern, not a singular leader. Our ballots are cast for local MPs, and the party with the majority elects our prime minister. In contrast, the US system centres on the direct election of a president, making national politics more personalised by design. Preferential voting also encourages engagement with more than one party and rewards coalition-building over extremism. This institutional design helps insulate us from the deep political tribalism seen in the US and gives us the space to explore identity in a less adversarial way. A few months ago, during the 2025 Australian federal election, the main topics on the campaign trail were the cost of living, Medicare, affordable housing and Australia's future energy mix – a far cry from the US presidential election, which focused on a 'war on woke' and employed rhetoric that divided American voters along lines of race, gender and sexuality. This contrast is driven in part by the need of American candidates to use emotionally charged narratives to boost voter turnout.
The Age
3 hours ago
- The Age
The one thing America could learn from us
A few weeks ago I watched as protesters braved the rain to cross the Sydney Harbour Bridge in a March for Humanity, calling for aid to Gaza. Among the Palestinian flags, one image stood out: the Indigenous flag, symbolising a shared history of dispossession. This week Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced that Australia will next month recognise a Palestinian state at the UN. These developments remind us that identity cannot be separated from politics. At a time when democracies elsewhere are fracturing under the weight of polarisation, Australia's institutional resilience should embolden us to embrace our differences more openly in political discourse – not frighten us. As an Australian studying in the US during both of Trump's presidential victories I saw first hand how identities can be politicised to fracture a society. After the October 7 Hamas attacks I witnessed, as a graduate student, how Harvard students retreated into ideological silos, avoiding dialogue with those whose identities they perceived to be at odds with their own. Australia feels different – partly because of how our political system is structured. Identity weighs less heavily on our social conscience, but perhaps that's why it's so often ignored. Identity politics refers to the idea that our race, gender, religion or class shapes our political views. Over time it has often been framed as divisive. Peter Dutton, after the 2023 Voice referendum defeat, said the result was a rejection of 'the madness of identity politics'. But his own loss in the 2025 election might suggest otherwise. A wave of post-election commentary emphasised the Liberal Party's need to better reflect 'modern Australia', with female representation highlighted as one of the most glaring absences in the party room. Loading Australia's electoral system structurally limits the worst elements of polarisation caused by identity politics. Unlike the US, where turnout hovers around 60 per cent, Australia's compulsory voting system ensures broad participation and fosters a more centrist politics. Our Westminster system means Australian voters elect a party to govern, not a singular leader. Our ballots are cast for local MPs, and the party with the majority elects our prime minister. In contrast, the US system centres on the direct election of a president, making national politics more personalised by design. Preferential voting also encourages engagement with more than one party and rewards coalition-building over extremism. This institutional design helps insulate us from the deep political tribalism seen in the US and gives us the space to explore identity in a less adversarial way. A few months ago, during the 2025 Australian federal election, the main topics on the campaign trail were the cost of living, Medicare, affordable housing and Australia's future energy mix – a far cry from the US presidential election, which focused on a 'war on woke' and employed rhetoric that divided American voters along lines of race, gender and sexuality. This contrast is driven in part by the need of American candidates to use emotionally charged narratives to boost voter turnout.
