Immigration levels
Q. Do you think the levels of immigration into Australia over the past ten years have been…?
| Oct’21 | Jan’19 | Apr’18 | Oct’16 | |
| Much too low | 5% | 4% | 1% | 4% |
| A little too low | 11% | 7% | 4% | 8% |
| About right | 36% | 26% | 23% | 28% |
| A little too high | 17% | 23% | 27% | 22% |
| Much too high | 20% | 33% | 37% | 28% |
| Don’t know | 11% | 6% | 7% | 10% |
| TOTAL: Too low | 16% | 12% | 5% | 12% |
| TOTAL: Too high | 37% | 56% | 64% | 50% |
- Significantly fewer people now think levels of immigration into Australia over the last decade have been too high, compared to January 2019 and prior.
- Over a third (37%) of people now think immigration levels are too high, compared to 56% in January 2019, 64% in April 2018 and 50% in October 2016.
- This is driven by an increase of people who think immigration levels are about right (36% from 26% in January 2019).
- 16% of people now think immigration levels are too low.
| Total | Gender | Age Group | Federal Voting Intention | |||||||
| Male | Female | 18-34 | 35-54 | 55+ | Labor | TOTAL: Coalition | Greens | TOTAL: Other | ||
| Much too low | 5% | 6% | 4% | 6% | 5% | 4% | 7% | 3% | 7% | 7% |
| A little too low | 11% | 12% | 10% | 14% | 8% | 12% | 13% | 9% | 16% | 11% |
| About right | 36% | 37% | 35% | 40% | 36% | 34% | 38% | 39% | 43% | 31% |
| A little too high | 17% | 16% | 17% | 16% | 17% | 17% | 16% | 21% | 9% | 13% |
| Much too high | 20% | 20% | 20% | 13% | 20% | 26% | 18% | 23% | 10% | 28% |
| Don’t know | 11% | 8% | 14% | 11% | 13% | 8% | 8% | 5% | 15% | 9% |
| TOTAL: Too low | 16% | 18% | 14% | 20% | 13% | 15% | 20% | 12% | 23% | 19% |
| TOTAL: Too high | 37% | 37% | 37% | 29% | 38% | 43% | 34% | 44% | 19% | 41% |
| Base (n) | 1,781 | 875 | 906 | 533 | 601 | 647 | 636 | 610 | 157 | 220 |
- Those aged over 55 are more likely than younger cohorts to think immigration levels are too high (43% to 38% of those aged 35-54, and 29% of those aged 18-34). A quarter (26%) of those over 55 think the levels are much too high.
- Among voters, Coalition voters (44%) are most likely to think immigration levels are too high, followed by minor and independent party voters (41%). Greens voters (19%) are least likely to think this. About a third (34%) of Labor voters think the levels are too high.
Views towards immigration
Q. The NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet recently called for an increase in Australia’s immigration levels.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
| TOTAL:
Agree |
TOTAL:
Disagree |
Strongly agree | Somewhat agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Somewhat disagree | Strongly disagree | |
| Increasing immigration levels would add more pressure on the housing system and infrastructure | 63% | 11% | 31% | 32% | 25% | 8% | 4% |
| Immigration is vital for Australia’s business and economy | 51% | 20% | 18% | 33% | 29% | 11% | 9% |
| Increasing immigration levels would equip businesses with the skilled workers they need to reopen as Covid-19 restrictions are eased | 50% | 22% | 16% | 33% | 28% | 13% | 9% |
| Increasing immigration levels would help to address Australia’s growing skills shortages as the population ages | 49% | 22% | 14% | 35% | 29% | 13% | 9% |
| Increasing immigration levels would create more competition for jobs and slow wage growth | 48% | 21% | 18% | 30% | 31% | 13% | 7% |
| TOTAL: Agree | Total | Gender | Age Group | Federal Voting Intention | ||||||
| Male | Female | 18-34 | 35-54 | 55+ | Labor | TOTAL: Coalition | Greens | TOTAL: Other | ||
| Increasing immigration levels would add more pressure on the housing system and infrastructure | 63% | 62% | 64% | 54% | 65% | 70% | 66% | 65% | 59% | 64% |
| Immigration is vital for Australia’s business and economy | 51% | 54% | 48% | 53% | 50% | 50% | 56% | 54% | 60% | 39% |
| Increasing immigration levels would equip businesses with the skilled workers they need to reopen as Covid-19 restrictions are eased | 50% | 52% | 47% | 50% | 47% | 51% | 54% | 52% | 56% | 42% |
| Increasing immigration levels would help to address Australia’s growing skills shortages as the population ages | 49% | 51% | 46% | 48% | 46% | 52% | 53% | 51% | 57% | 39% |
| Increasing immigration levels would create more competition for jobs and slow wage growth | 48% | 51% | 45% | 50% | 50% | 46% | 51% | 48% | 45% | 51% |
| Base (n) | 1,781 | 875 | 906 | 533 | 601 | 647 | 636 | 610 | 157 | 220 |
- Older cohorts are more likely to agree than younger groups that increasing immigration levels would add more pressure on the housing system and infrastructure. 70% of those over 55 agree with this statement, compared to 65% of those aged 35-54 and 54% of those aged 18-34. Agreement with this statement is consistent across voters.
- Men are more likely than women to agree that immigration is vital for Australia’s business and economy (54% to 48% respectively).
- Minor and independent party voters are least likely to agree that immigration is vital for Australia’s business and economy (39%), that increasing immigration levels would equip businesses with the skilled workers they need (42%), and help to address Australia’s growing skills shortages as the population ages (39%).
| TOTAL: Agree | People who say the levels of immigration have been
too low |
People who say the levels of immigration have been
about right |
People who say the levels of immigration have been
too high |
| Increasing immigration levels would add more pressure on the housing system and infrastructure | 47% | 62% | 76% |
| Immigration is vital for Australia’s business and economy | 74% | 60% | 34% |
| Increasing immigration levels would equip businesses with the skilled workers they need to reopen as Covid-19 restrictions are eased | 77% | 58% | 34% |
| Increasing immigration levels would help to address Australia’s growing skills shortages as the population ages | 75% | 56% | 34% |
| Increasing immigration levels would create more competition for jobs and slow wage growth | 47% | 48% | 53% |
| Base (n) | 277 | 645 | 694 |
- Those who think immigration levels have been too high in the past decade are less likely to agree with the benefits and business need for immigration.
- Those who think immigration levels have been too low are more likely to agree that immigration is vital for business and economy (74% to 60% ‘about right’ and 34% ‘too high’), and that increasing immigration levels would equip businesses with the skilled workers they need (77% to 58% and 34%), and help to address Australia’s growing skills shortages as the population ages (75% to 56% and 34%).
- Those who think the levels are too high are more likely to think increasing levels would add more pressure on the housing system and infrastructure (76% to 47%).
Views towards temporary work visas
Q. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about temporary work visas in Australia?
| TOTAL:
Agree |
TOTAL:
Disagree |
Strongly agree | Somewhat agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Somewhat disagree | Strongly disagree | |
| Temporary work visas should be used to cover genuine skills shortages, not to provide cheap labour | 72% | 8% | 41% | 31% | 20% | 5% | 3% |
| Everyone who works in Australia should be entitled to the same pay and working conditions regardless of their visa status | 67% | 10% | 34% | 33% | 24% | 7% | 3% |
| Temporary work visas are essential for Australian businesses to fill skills shortages | 59% | 14% | 19% | 40% | 26% | 8% | 6% |
| Temporary work visas have been used to drive down wages and working conditions in Australia | 47% | 16% | 17% | 30% | 37% | 12% | 4% |
- There is high agreement with the need to provide equivalent pay and conditions to migrant workers. 72% of people agree temporary work visas should be used to cover genuine skills shortages, not to provide cheap labour and 67% agree that all workers in Australia should be entitled to the same pay and working conditions.
- There is less consensus as to whether temporary work visas have been used to drive down wages and working conditions in Australia. Just 47% agree with this statement, and a further 37% neither agree nor disagree.
| TOTAL: Agree | Total | Gender | Age Group | Federal Voting Intention | ||||||
| Male | Female | 18-34 | 35-54 | 55+ | Labor | TOTAL: Coalition | Greens | TOTAL: Other | ||
| Temporary work visas should be used to cover genuine skills shortages, not to provide cheap labour | 72% | 71% | 73% | 60% | 70% | 85% | 74% | 77% | 74% | 64% |
| Everyone who works in Australia should be entitled to the same pay and working conditions regardless of their visa status | 67% | 67% | 66% | 57% | 66% | 75% | 71% | 70% | 75% | 55% |
| Temporary work visas are essential for Australian businesses to fill skills shortages | 59% | 61% | 58% | 55% | 57% | 66% | 63% | 66% | 63% | 46% |
| Temporary work visas have been used to drive down wages and working conditions in Australia | 47% | 50% | 44% | 49% | 50% | 43% | 53% | 44% | 51% | 46% |
| Base (n) | 1,781 | 875 | 906 | 533 | 601 | 647 | 636 | 610 | 157 | 220 |
- Those aged over 55 are more likely than younger cohorts to agree that temporary work visas should be used to cover genuine skills shortages, not to provide cheap labour (85% to 65% younger cohorts), everyone who works in Australia should be entitled to the same pay and working conditions regardless of their visa status (75% to 62%), and temporary work visas are essential for Australian businesses to fill skills shortages (66% to 56%).
- Minor/independent party voters are less likely than other voters to agree that temporary work visas should be used to cover genuine skills shortages, not to provide cheap labour (64% to 75% all other voters), everyone who works in Australia should be entitled to the same pay and working conditions regardless of their visa status (55% to 71%), and temporary work visas are essential for Australian businesses to fill skills shortages (46% to 64%).
| TOTAL: Agree | People who say the levels of immigration have been
too low |
People who say the levels of immigration have been
about right |
People who say the levels of immigration have been
too high |
| Temporary work visas should be used to cover genuine skills shortages, not to provide cheap labour | 71% | 73% | 75% |
| Everyone who works in Australia should be entitled to the same pay and working conditions regardless of their visa status | 78% | 67% | 64% |
| Temporary work visas are essential for Australian businesses to fill skills shortages | 71% | 66% | 52% |
| Temporary work visas have been used to drive down wages and working conditions in Australia | 49% | 44% | 56% |
| Base (n) | 277 | 645 | 694 |
- Irrespective of views towards immigration, the majority agree temporary work visas should be used to cover genuine skills shortages, not to provide cheap labour.
- While overall there is majority agreement that everyone who works in Australia should be entitled to the same pay and working conditions regardless of their visa status, those who say the levels of immigration have been too low are more likely to agree with this than those who think the levels have been about right or too high (78% to 67% and 64% respectively).
- Those who say the levels of immigration have been too low are also more likely to agree that temporary work visas are essential for Australian businesses to fill skills shortages (71% to 66% and 52%).
- Those who say immigration levels have been too high are more likely to agree temporary work visas have been used to drive down wages and working conditions in Australia (56% to 44% ‘about right’ and 49% ‘too low’).
Attitude towards Australia first hiring
Q. Last weekend Kristina Kenneally, a NSW senator, called for the federal government to reduce the number of temporary migrant worker visas permitted after the Covid-19 outbreak. She argues that Australian businesses should prioritise training and hiring Australians for roles, rather than seeking temporary workers to fill skill-shortages.
To what extent, do you support or oppose this idea of “Australia first” hiring?
| Gender | Age Group | ||||||
| Total | Male | Female | 18-34 | 35-54 | 55+ | ||
| Strongly support | 41% | 36% | 46% | 27% | 42% | 53% | |
| Somewhat support | 26% | 28% | 23% | 25% | 26% | 25% | |
| Neither support, nor oppose | 21% | 21% | 21% | 30% | 24% | 10% | |
| Somewhat oppose | 6% | 7% | 4% | 10% | 3% | 5% | |
| Strongly oppose | 6% | 8% | 5% | 9% | 5% | 6% | |
| TOTAL: Support | 67% | 64% | 70% | 52% | 68% | 78% | |
| TOTAL: Oppose | 12% | 15% | 9% | 18% | 8% | 12% | |
| Base (n) | 1,067 | 532 | 535 | 341 | 341 | 385 | |
| Federal Voting Intention | ||||
| Labor | Coalition | Greens | TOTAL: Other | |
| Strongly support | 41% | 44% | 23% | 61% |
| Somewhat support | 22% | 31% | 26% | 21% |
| Neither support, nor oppose | 24% | 15% | 34% | 12% |
| Somewhat oppose | 7% | 4% | 7% | 4% |
| Strongly oppose | 6% | 5% | 10% | 2% |
| TOTAL: Support | 63% | 75% | 50% | 82% |
| TOTAL: Oppose | 13% | 10% | 17% | 7% |
| Base (n) | 306 | 418 | 86 | 143 |
- Kristina Kenneally’s “Australia first” hiring approach is supported by 67% of participants; women (70%), those over 55 (78%), Coalition (75%) and other party voters (82%) are more likely to support this approach than men (64%), 18-34 year olds (52%) and Greens voters (50%).
Immigration and Religion
Q. When a family applies to migrate to Australia, should it be possible for them to be rejected purely on the basis of their religion?
|
|
Total
|
|
Vote Labor |
Vote Lib/Nat |
Vote Greens |
Vote other |
|
Feb 2011 |
| Should be rejected on basis of religion |
21% |
16% |
27% |
9% |
29% |
19% |
||
| Should not be rejected on basis of religion |
63% |
71% |
53% |
84% |
56% |
65% |
||
| Don’t know |
17% |
13% |
20% |
7% |
15% |
15% |
63% believed that when a family applies to migrate to Australia, they should not be rejected purely on the basis of their religion and 21% think it should be possible to reject purely based on religion. These figures are similar to when this question was asked in 2011.
There were no substantial differences across age and gender groups.
Liberal voters were a little more supportive of being able to reject based on religion (27%) and Greens voters were strongly opposed (84%).
Perceived intake of asylum seekers as a proportion of annual immigration
Q. From what you have read and heard, what percentage of Australia’s annual immigration intake are asylum seekers arriving by boat?
| 7 Jun 2010 | This week | Vote Labor | Vote Lib/Nat | Vote Greens | |
| 50% or more | 10% | 12% | 11% | 13% | 10% |
| About 25% | 15% | 11% | 10% | 12% | 6% |
| About 10% | 13% | 10% | 9% | 10% | 8% |
| About 5% | 15% | 16% | 18% | 17% | 16% |
| 1% or less | 18% | 25% | 26% | 24% | 39% |
| Don’t know | 30% | 27% | 25% | 23% | 21% |
Twenty three per cent (23%) of respondents think that the proportion of asylum seeker intake by boat is 25% or more of the annual immigration intake.
Ten per cent (10%) of respondents think that the percentage of boat arrivals is about 10% of annual immigration intake and 16% believe it to be about 5%.
Twenty five per cent (25%) of respondents believe that the proportion of asylum seekers arriving by boat constitutes 1% or less of our annual immigration intake and 27% of respondents don’t know.
Greens voters are the most likely to think that the percentage was 1% or less, with 39% of Greens respondents selecting this response.
The proportion of respondents believing the proportion to be ‘1% or less’ has shifted 7 points up from 18% to 25% since 7 June 2010.
Immigration and Religion
Q. When a family applies to migrate to Australia, should it be possible for them to be rejected purely on the basis of their religion?
| Total | Vote Labor | Vote Lib/Nat | Vote Greens | |
| Should be rejected on basis of religion | 19% | 17% | 24% | 10% |
| Should not be rejected on basis of religion | 65% | 67% | 63% | 85% |
| Don’t know | 15% | 16% | 13% | 5% |
65% believed that when a family applies to migrate to Australia, they should not be rejected purely on the basis of their religion and 19% think it should be possible to reject purely based on religion. There were no substantial differences across age and gender groups.
Liberal voters were a little more supportive of being able to reject based on religion (24%) and Greens voters were strongly opposed (85%).
So where is the Left?
First Published on The Drum 26/10/2010
If political progressives want to stop the ALP from drifting to the Right, energetically backing the decision to move women and children out of immigration detention looks like a good place to start.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Immigration minister Chris Bowen took the new minority government’s first truly brave decision last week, yet all they got was a sullen acceptance from a Left still acting like jilted lovers after the disappointments of the election campaign.
COVID-19 RESEARCH
Read Essential's ongoing research on the public response to Covid-19.
Essential Report
In this week's report:
- Performance of Scott Morrison
- Performance of Anthony Albanese
- Preferred Prime Minister
- Views towards re-electing the federal Coalition government
- Party trust to handle issues
- Importance of Australia’s international reputation
- Scott Morrison’s impact on Australia’s international reputation
- Views towards Australia’s international reputation
Sign up for updates
Receive the Essential Report in your inbox.Essential Tags
Recent Comments
