- Immigrant Times
- Jan 16
- 8 min read
Australia is proud of its multiculturalism, but unease about immigration is growing
The devastating massacre on Bondi Beach in December 2025 shocked the nation and further intensified discussions around migration, identity and security
By The Immigrant Times
In 2026, Australian immigration is focused on a major policy reset, shifting from high volume to targeted skills, with a stable 185,000 permanent migration cap but stricter student visa rules and emphasis on critical sectors like health, tech, and trades, making skilled independent visas more selective and favouring regional/employer-sponsored pathways for skilled workers to address labour shortages and improve system integrity. Net migration is projected to decrease as post-COVID demand slows and policy changes take effect; however, Australia is expected to continue experiencing significant population growth.
January 2026: Australia has long carried the reputation of being a successful immigrant nation, its cities, workforce and cultural life shaped by the continuous arrival of people from around the world. For decades, immigration has been not only an economic necessity but also a defining element of national identity. Yet in recent years, that long-standing story of multicultural confidence has begun to weaken. Pressures linked to housing, infrastructure and social cohesion have increasingly shaped public debate.
Foreign-born Australians
Australia remains one of the most migration-intensive societies in the developed world. According to the most recent data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, approximately 31.5 per cent of the resident population was born overseas as of mid-2024, the highest proportion recorded since the late nineteenth century. This equates to roughly 8.6 million people living in Australia who were born outside the country.
These figures place Australia well above many European countries and broadly comparable with other high-immigration states such as Canada. The origins of Australia’s overseas-born population are diverse, reflecting decades of changing global mobility patterns and policy priorities. While people born in the United Kingdom remain one of the largest single groups, migration from Asia and the Pacific has become increasingly prominent. India, China, the Philippines, New Zealand and Vietnam are among the most significant countries of origin.
Recent migration trends have been strongly influenced by the post-pandemic rebound. After international travel restrictions were lifted in 2022, net overseas migration surged, accounting for a substantial share of Australia’s population growth. Although official figures suggest some moderation since the immediate post-COVID peak, annual migration levels remain high by historical standards, adding several hundred thousand residents each year.
It is important to distinguish between different measures and categories. Net overseas migration captures the balance between long-term arrivals and departures, including both permanent and temporary migrants. By contrast, the government’s migration programme includes a range of distinct streams, such as skilled migration, family reunification, and humanitarian intake. While these distinctions are central to policy design, they are often blurred in public debate, where migration is frequently discussed as a single, undifferentiated phenomenon.
Taken together, the data underline that migration continues to play a defining role in Australia’s demographic and economic profile. At the same time, the scale and visibility of these flows help explain why immigration remains such a politically and emotionally charged issue.
Immigration as an asset
Despite growing unease in parts of the public debate, positive attitudes towards immigration remain deeply embedded in Australian society. For many Australians, multiculturalism is not an abstract policy concept but a daily reality, evident in neighbourhoods, workplaces, schools and social life, particularly in major urban centres such as Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.
Public opinion research conducted over recent years has consistently shown majority support for immigration in principle, especially when framed around economic contribution, skills and labour shortages. Many Australians recognise the role immigrants play in sustaining key sectors, including healthcare, elderly care, construction, education and technology. There is also a widespread sense of cultural pride associated with diversity, with multiculturalism often described as a strength rather than a threat.
More recent polling, including work by Leng, Edwards and Wood in 2025, suggests a nuanced picture rather than a dramatic collapse in support. While concerns about the scale and pace of immigration have increased, support for immigration itself remains relatively resilient. It is important to note that this research predates the Bondi Beach attack and therefore reflects attitudes shaped primarily by economic pressures and housing constraints rather than the immediate aftermath of a national trauma.
A recurring theme in survey data is the distinction many Australians draw between immigration as a concept and the way it is managed. Support for migration often coexists with frustration over policy execution, infrastructure planning and communication by the government. In this sense, dissatisfaction is frequently directed at institutions rather than at migrants themselves.
For immigrant communities, these mixed sentiments sit alongside everyday experiences of acceptance and participation. Community organisations regularly point to high levels of workforce engagement, educational attainment and intergenerational integration as evidence that, beneath political debate, multicultural Australia continues to function with relative stability.
Immigration as a challenge
Alongside these positive views, concerns about immigration have become more pronounced and more complex. Some are practical and economic. Housing affordability dominates public discussion, with high migration levels often cited as a contributing factor to rising rents and limited supply. Similar anxieties surface around congestion, access to healthcare, school capacity and the strain on local services.
Labour-market concerns also persist. Although economic research frequently highlights the overall benefits of migration, parts of the public worry about job competition or wage stagnation, particularly in lower-paid sectors. These fears tend to intensify during periods of economic uncertainty, even when broader employment data remains relatively strong.
Other concerns are less tangible but no less influential. Questions of identity, cultural change and social cohesion underpin much of the unease expressed in public debate. For some Australians, rapid demographic change generates feelings of dislocation or loss, emotions that are not always openly articulated but shape attitudes towards newcomers. Race plays an uncomfortable role in this context, with migrants from non-European backgrounds often subjected to greater scrutiny regardless of length of residence or citizenship status.
Crime is another recurring theme. Immigrants are frequently blamed in public discourse for perceived increases in criminal activity, despite extensive research showing no simple or consistent link between immigration and higher crime rates. These perceptions are often reinforced by selective media coverage and online commentary, making them resistant to correction through evidence alone.
Many of these concerns overlap and reinforce one another. Economic pressure feeds emotional anxiety; isolated incidents are interpreted through existing fears; and complex social challenges are simplified into narratives about migration. This interplay helps explain why public opinion on immigration in Australia often appears contradictory, broadly supportive in principle, yet uneasy in practice.
The Bondi Beach massacre
The massacre on Bondi Beach in December 2025 marked a profound moment of national shock. The attack, which targeted civilians in a public space, shattered assumptions about safety and reverberated far beyond Sydney. Political leaders across the spectrum condemned the violence, while vigils and memorials reflected a widespread desire for solidarity and collective mourning.
In the days that followed, the attack became a focal point in debates that were already underway. Some commentators framed it as a test of social cohesion, while others emphasised the need to confront rising hatred and extremism. Although the attack was motivated by hostility towards a specific community, its broader impact was felt across discussions of immigration, identity and belonging.
In parts of the political and media landscape, the tragedy was used to question whether migration policies had sufficiently promoted shared values or effective integration. At the same time, many leaders and analysts cautioned against conflating violent extremism with immigration more broadly, stressing that such acts are rare and not representative of migrant communities as a whole.
Government responses reflected this tension. Alongside commitments to address hate crime and strengthen security frameworks, officials were careful to avoid collective blame, repeatedly emphasising that immigration itself is not a driver of violence. For many Australians, the attack did not fundamentally alter views on migration, but it intensified existing anxieties and sharpened an already charged debate.
Media and the immigration debate
Media coverage plays a central role in shaping how events such as the Bondi Beach massacre are understood. In its aftermath, reporting varied widely. Some outlets focused on the human cost, resilience and unity, while others foregrounded political disagreement and policy implications. These differing frames contributed to divergent interpretations of what the attack meant for Australia’s multicultural project.
In some media commentary, the tragedy was quickly linked to broader questions about immigration and integration. Opinion pieces and social media discussions raised concerns about security and values, while other voices warned against fear-driven responses and urged greater attention to evidence and proportion.
Political actors also contributed to this amplification. Some figures sought to connect the attack to perceived failures in migration policy, while mainstream leaders stressed unity and cautioned against stigmatising entire communities. This dynamic, in which isolated events are woven into wider narratives about migration, is not unique to Australia, but it illustrates how public anxiety can be magnified through media and political discourse.
At the same time, there have been efforts within the media to provide context and restraint, particularly in outlets that foreground expert analysis and community perspectives. Such approaches play an important role in tempering fear and reminding audiences that public opinion is shaped not only by events themselves, but by how those events are interpreted and communicated.
Official support amid public caution
At the official level, Australia’s stance on immigration remains broadly supportive. Governments continue to emphasise the role of migration in addressing labour shortages, supporting economic growth and sustaining public services. Skilled migration, in particular, is essential to long-term national planning.
Yet this support is accompanied by increasingly cautious rhetoric. Political leaders frequently stress the need for ‘orderly’ and ‘well-managed’ migration, stronger integrity checks and clearer limits on intake. Border control remains a prominent feature of political messaging, reflecting sensitivity to public concern even as migration pathways expand.
Policy distinctions between skilled, family and humanitarian migration are clear in official frameworks, but less so in public discussion. Humanitarian intake, while tightly capped and relatively small, often becomes entangled in broader debates about migration, allowing anxieties to attach themselves to numerically marginal groups.
Following the Bondi Beach attack, official messaging sought to balance reassurance with action. Leaders emphasised that extremism and hatred are not products of migration, while signalling stronger measures on hate crime and social cohesion. This careful positioning highlights a persistent tension: an institutional reliance on migration combined with an acute awareness of how quickly public sentiment can shift.
Fazit
Australia’s relationship with immigration is under strain, but it is not broken. Support for migration remains widespread, yet confidence has weakened as economic pressure, demographic changes, and moments of national trauma intersect. The Bondi Beach massacre intensified these dynamics without creating them, exposing the fragility of public trust during periods of uncertainty. The challenge for policymakers, media and the wider public lies in responding to legitimate concerns without allowing fear or perception to obscure evidence, distinction and proportion.
Sources:
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)
• Australia’s population by country of birth
• Net overseas migration statistics
Australian Department of Home Affairs
• Migration Program planning levels
• Visa and humanitarian intake statistics
Leng, Edwards & Wood (2025)
• Public attitudes to immigration and social cohesion
The Guardian
• Reporting on public opinion polling and migration sentiment, 2024–2025
ABC News
• Coverage of the Bondi Beach massacre and subsequent political and policy responses
Reuters
• Analysis and reporting on Australia’s political and social response following the Bondi Beach attack
SBS News
• Commentary on migration, integration and community responses to security concerns
Australian Government statements
• Prime Ministerial and ministerial remarks on immigration, social cohesion and hate crime following December 2025
Further reading from The Immigrant Times: Global migration ||
COMMENTS
FOLLOW