2026-03-09
Migration numbers are probably a very minor factor in the housing crisis, but we shouldn’t simply dismiss people who claim the opposite, as productive conversations can be had if we seek common ground with those who have concerns about migration
By Rob Delves, Green Issue Co-editor
Engage with anti-migrant anger
To support and promote their housing policies, Greens MPs are encouraging members and supporters to engage with our communities in housing conversations through door knocking and other formats. People like to share their stories about housing. In these conversations it is very likely that the question of migration will be raised, often along the lines of: “housing is an expensive mess and it’s the migrants wot done it.”
How should we respond? It’s correct to reject the evidence-free simplistic line that “it’s all the migrants’ fault” but an equally simplistic dismissal that “migration has nothing to do with it” is also arrogantly unhelpful. I’ve been reflecting on my own conversations when people link migration and the housing crisis and I’ve also been researching arguments from both sides of the chasm. What follows is my attempt to think through both the content and tone of talking about this issue, trying to base my approach on what I believe are the twin principles of effective conversations – listen respectfully and seek common ground.
Migration has been a great success story, but don’t dismiss all critics
In recent months, our migrant numbers and multicultural intake have become hotly contested, at times savagely attacked, largely for political gain, as has happened on several occasions in my lifetime. Those attacks include finger-pointing at migrants for causing the housing shortage.
Let’s begin by stating what I believe is a foundational Greens principle: that migration has been a very good thing for Australia, up there with the best achievements in our chequered history.
In particular the large numbers and gradually increasing multicultural intake of the last 80 years have enriched us economically and socially. The 1940s and 1950s had many positives, but the white Anglo monotony was not one of them. Migrants and refugees have made huge contributions in the arts, science, business – let’s just say in every field ‒ for they have changed our culture for the better. In different periods they have provided workers in essential sectors that would otherwise have been difficult to fill – for example in the postwar decades construction (think “Snowy Mountains project”), manufacturing, public transport and in more recent decades in the care sector.
The Greens are enthusiastic supporters of a well-resourced migrant and refugee program, where the welcome and support services we provide are regarded as probably more important than the numbers. My last 11 years of teaching were at the Intensive English Centre at Melville SHS, where it was a delight to help newly-arrived migrants and refugees become competent at English and learn about our history and culture. At our best, the generous provision of a multitude of services such as this have been enough to make me a dewy-eyed patriot. Unfortunately, the generosity of such provision hasn’t been consistent over the long decades.
Of course there have always been loud voices, especially on the far right, angrily blaming migrants for social disharmony, lower wages, unemployment and the decline of a Fair Go (“they’re taking our jobs and rorting the welfare system”). They also claim that the high numbers are the reason for houses becoming unaffordable.
Our Greens’ pro-multicultural values make us loathe to have anything to do with these criticisms. If we were to swap Migrants for Romans into the famous Life of Brian scene and ask “What have the migrants ever done for us?” our Greens answer would probably be: “they’ve made everything better!”
However, I think it’s a mistake to only focus on the negatives of some anti-migrant discourse – the racism, the punching down, the simplistic claims lacking any evidence, the blatant appeal to the darker aspects of human nature. There’s also real pain and a sense of loss amongst people who have seen their living standards decline, especially in relation to housing costs and who correctly feel they are not being listened to, even denigrated, by the mainstream Left – Hilary Clinton’s infamous “basket of deplorables” is amongst the worst examples of this mainstream attitude. It’s a mistake that is delivering millions of recruits to far-right parties around the world.
Finding common ground
There’s broad agreement that we have two main principles when we’re in conversations with people, especially when doorknocking: first, listen intently and respectfully and second, seek common ground. There’s much that I dislike and believe is plain wrong with the widespread belief that “houses have become unaffordable because we accept too many migrants.” However, I can find common ground on two points. Firstly, the obvious correlation: houses have indeed become more and more expensive since the huge increase in migrant numbers that started suddenly about 25 years ago. Secondly, the justifiable anger about lack of consolation and debate about what migration numbers should be ‒ in fact there’s never even been any explanation from our leaders.
I’d like to explore this relationship between migrant numbers and housing. I am indebted to Alan Kohler, and recommend his recent book The Great Divide: Australia’s housing mess and how to fix it.
2003, the watershed year, thanks to one nasty, astute PM
Let’s begin with the numbers. From 1946 our migrant intake was remarkably stable for nearly 60 years. In any year it only fluctuated by a few thousand above or below the average of 90,890 per year. That suddenly changed around 2003 when the numbers exploded to over 200,000 and stayed there – the average since 2003 has been 214,560.
A big change, but with very little debate nor even any attempt at explanation. The reason is that we had perhaps our nastiest prime minister ever, name of John Howard, who set out to destroy the union movement, cut wages and increase business profits. We all know about his infamous tactics – the waterfront dispute, the Workplace Relations Act (aka WorkChoices), cuts to union funding, attacks on the building unions….
All out in the open and all very nasty – and unfortunately largely successful, and permanent, though that success only became obvious towards the end of his reign. Wage growth had averaged 4.2% for many years, but fell to only 1.2% from 2006 onwards, and in the same period union membership fell from 24% to 12.5%. Meanwhile, business profits have increased and averaged 8.4% a year since 2006 and the number of billionaires has steadily grown.
As Keating famously predicted when he lost to Howard: “when you change the government you change the nation.” I’m sure he could see this sort of attack on the working class coming.
As well as being top of the table for nastiness, Howard was also amongst the very best for rat political cunning. As part of his attack on workers, he also used a tactic that was the very opposite of “out in the open” – a massive sustained migrant increase was deployed to drive down wages and increase job insecurity.
How did he get away with it? Firstly, the pro-business media loved the intention and stayed silent. Secondly, he was able to hide behind his very out in the open assault on refugees. Most of the public would have agreed that “Johnny Howard is doing a good job of controlling our borders and making sure we aren’t flooded with large numbers, especially Asian undesirables.” Getting the public to believe such a blatant distortion of reality was an amazing feat of acute political artistry.
Increased migration has contributed to housing woes, BUT?
The relentless decline in housing affordability has coincided with these post 2001 nasties delivered courtesy of John Howard. The correlation is clear, but what about causation? We can begin with the obvious fact that the suppression of real wages makes housing less affordable, unless house prices have also been falling, which is very obviously not happening.
It is also obvious that there was no commitment to balance the large migrant-driven population increase with enough housing, especially affordable social and public housing. The neoliberal agenda is not only about lower wages and higher profits, but also about refusing to fund the public sector because of the dogma that “unregulated private enterprise always does it better.” In fact, Howard was openly effusive about rising house prices – and smart enough to realise that home owners loved feeling rich when they became housing millionaires, despite the fact that this isn’t wealth, it’s just useless, damaging inflation.
So, what’s my idea of how Greens should respond in conversation to a claim such as “we are letting far too many migrants into our country and that’s why there’s a shortage of houses and rents and house prices are too high.”
I’m not sure about what the “right response” is, though I am sure that both extremes are way off – there’s no evidence that migration is a primary cause but also it makes sense that when population grows much faster than housing, there will be shortages and cost pressures.
What’s important is the listening – acknowledge the concerns and express common ground. For me that would be agreeing that governments haven’t engaged with the people about why they have decided to more than double the numbers from the previous long term average. That’s a failure of decency, respect, democracy. I’d agree that migrant numbers do have some impact on our housing crisis – then I’d sling in a stack of “buts” that I’d hope we could discuss productively.
Yes, migration matters, BUT there are other far more important factors contributing to our housing crisis. Here’s my top six (I’m sure readers can add others):
- negative gearing, and the capital gains tax discount
- the decision by both Liberal and Labor governments to run down the public housing sector
- lack of renters rights and the failure to regulate the private rental market
- the explosion of short-term rentals
- policies such as 5% deposits and first home buyers grants that only serve to push up prices
- over-focus on Perth – the failure to decentralise
Ideas for having great migration-housing conversations
Since migration was raised, we need to seek common ground on its relationship with housing. I’d begin by discussing why we have chosen to more than double the previous average, the lack of consultation, etc… So we can agree that migration numbers and composition are driven too much by the needs of business (mainly for cheaper labour) with almost no regard for the impact on housing. It seems to me sensible to agree we should broaden migration decisions to consider housing supply – for example our economy’s capacity to build one extra home for every two or three migrants.
This could lead to less focus on numbers and more on the skill composition of our migrant intake. The earlier decades of British and European migrants had mostly trade skills. Many worked in construction and that was partly why home building kept pace with population growth. The millions of Asian migrants since the 1990s haven’t brought quite so many of those skills, and changing that mix should be on the agenda. However, I’d want to champion the essential contribution Asian migrants have made to many other sectors, maybe highlighting small business and the caring industries.
Also enriching our cultural life – I’d love to seek common ground on that important truth! And common ground on the good sense of The Greens major long-term solution to the housing crisis – creating a large public housing sector to sit alongside the private housing market. I’m proud of that solidly evidence-based policy and want to share it.
Greens members and supporters agree that engaging people on the topic of housing is fairly easy because people want to share their stories. There’s deep concern about the relentless worsening of the affordability crisis and a desire to exchange ideas on solutions. Migration is often raised and it’s a mistake to simply dismiss it with a one-line reply. We can rightly applaud that migrants have been a huge positive to this country, but as with many good things, it’s also true that ever more of the good thing often isn’t better. Numbers matter.
As does ensuring migrants from many different cultures are supported to make sense of ours – let’s seek common ground on the necessity of a well-resourced range of migrant support services. It’s an investment that will repay itself multiple times over.
Talking about housing is an enjoyable campaign activity. Let’s openly share our ideas, our enthusiasms and concerns about what the numbers and composition of our migrant intake are should be. The public will surely appreciate that openness. In my opinion the tone and attitude we adopt are more important than the arguments.
Header photo: British migrants on the deck of the Georgic, Australia, 1949, Norman Herfort, Pix Magazine, from photographic negative, Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales ON 388/Box 005/Item 002
[Opinions expressed are those of the author and not official policy of Greens WA]