2025 marked a turning point in Australian immigration policy, as long-term planning was abandoned and discriminatory rhetoric returned to the political mainstream.

There were two developments in immigration policy in 2025 that reflect a major turning point. First, parts of the Coalition continue to talk up a return to a discriminatory migration program as they try to hold off a surging One Nation Party. And second, the Labor government surprisingly flipped on its pre-election commitment to develop a long-term immigration plan.

The lack of an immigration plan may continue to contribute to the anti-immigration sentiment and marches that have become a feature of the Australian public discourse (as in many other nations).

Peter Dutton tried hard to make immigration the key issue of the 2025 Federal Election but failed. Against that background, and with net migration having fallen significantly, some including the Labor government may have thought immigration policy would go off the boil in Australian politics. That has not been the case. A discriminatory immigration policy is now even more prominent than prior to the election.

The last time that a major political party in Australia dabbled with a return to a discriminatory immigration policy was John Howard’s 1988 suggestion of a cut back in migration from Asia. That led to him losing the leadership of the Liberal Party to Andrew Peacock in 1989 and seven years later to Howard dis-endorsing Pauline Hanson from Liberal pre-selection. Howard repeatedly apologised for his 1988 comments ahead of the 1996 election while Hanson successfully ran as an Independent.

This time around the target of the Liberal Party’s immigration policy concerns is less clear. Jacinta Price, a close associate of Pauline Hanson since their joint campaigning against the Voice Referendum and with a shared mutual admiration of Donald Trump, accused the Labor government of engineering increased migration from India to win votes. In response, Liberal leader Sussan Ley forced Price to resign from her shadow portfolio positions.

Liberal leadership aspirant and Tony Abbott devotee Andrew Hastie expressed his concerns in slightly more subtle, but still dog whistling terms, saying high immigration is making Australians feel like “strangers in their own home.” Hastie subsequently resigned from his Shadow Home Affairs position but has not walked back his comments. Hastie has strong support from the Murdoch press, the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) and various other hard right conservatives.

In developing its new immigration policy, the Liberal Party was at one stage reportedly considering a stronger ‘Australian Values’ test for new migrants and temporary entrants.  But in an ABC interview, Angus Taylor insisted this was not the case. At present, visa applicants must sign up to a set of ‘Australian Values’ but are not tested on these.

Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie still seems keen on the idea, especially with Barnaby Joyce having left the Nationals for One Nation.

The fact is moving to an ‘Australian Values’ test for a visa, rather than just signing up to a set of ‘Australian Values’ would create significant costs and delays but achieve little else.

In exasperation, One Nation and the Nationals may eventually decide to copy Donald Trump and simply ban migration from certain nations. Urged on by the usual suspects at the Murdoch press and the IPA, Andrew Hastie and Jacinta Price may decide to also adopt the idea as part of a challenge for the Liberal leadership. That may require a promise to abolish or amendment of the Race Discrimination Act – a politically explosive move.

An approach that would achieve some of the same dog whistling effects and delay new migrants getting citizenship (and hence being able to vote) would be to strengthen the current Citizenship Test so more people fail and just remain in Australia as permanent residents. Ley may cling to that as part of her proposed ‘pillars of immigration policy’ even though that would be bad for social cohesion.

Ley will undoubtedly argue for further reductions in immigration levels, possibly both net migration as well as the permanent intake. She will avoid specifying targets for as long as she can to avoid the problems Peter Dutton got himself into when asked to be specific about what parts of the intake he would cut.

Labor may want to criticise Ley for that (as Tony Burke already has) but Burke has his own problems caused by his repudiation of long-term immigration planning that Labor committed to prior to the election. Burke has argued there is no magic number for immigration and that the Government needs the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances.

Of course, those two silly arguments could be used to avoid long-term planning for any major public policy issue. It is surprising the media has not criticised him for that.

The problem for Burke is that while net migration has fallen significantly and is now around 315,000:

• it is unlikely to fall significantly further and without further policy action, won’t fall to the 225,000 long-term net migration level being forecast by Treasury; and • the massively clogged visa system resulting in rising pressure to increase the permanent migration program will eventually have to be dealt with – dealing with that sooner is much better than letting it continue to grow and trying to deal with it later (and possibly closer to the next election).

Putting long-term immigration planning measures in place, such as those adopted by Canada, would both address the migration management problems Burke is facing as well as reduce anxieties in the Australian public that are leading to the rise in popularity of One Nation and the pressure on the Coalition to again adopt a discriminatory immigration policy.