Voices at the centre of Australia’s migration debate: what migrants and advocates are saying

# Quick summary

# Who is speaking

Kobra Sayyadi, who arrived in 2010 via Pakistan and works in the creative arts in Sydney, says current political emphasis on skilled visas and specific industries signals migrants are valued primarily for their economic roles. She notes speeches that name doctors, construction workers and nurses convey an implicit hierarchy of worth and asks that attention be paid to public services, community roles and the arts.

Associate professor Laurie Berg at the University of Technology Sydney criticises the fixation on a single Nom figure. She says reducing migrants to numbers can dehumanise them, inflame anti-migrant sentiment, and feed the false assumption that migrants are to blame for social problems such as housing shortages or cost-of-living pressures. Berg warns the debate risks scapegoating communities and enabling exploitation.

# What the policy conversation looks like

The federal government has announced changes intended to reduce net overseas migration to 245,000 this financial year and to 225,000 in 2027–28. One Nation has proposed far deeper cuts, aiming to reduce the number of temporary migrants by more than 750,000 over three years and impose a Nom ceiling of 130,000. Public discussion has focused on who arrives, who stays and who leaves, with ministers naming priority workforce categories.

# How people say this affects them

Migrants report feeling anxious and uncertain. The debate's emphasis on headline Nom figures makes many feel instrumentalised—valued for perceived economic output rather than their full social participation. Young people who came as refugees or on family visas worry about belonging and futures in education and work. Creative and community-sector workers see limited recognition of roles that do not fit the "skilled worker" label.

# Practical implications and tensions

• Policy trimmed to Nom targets will change visa pathways and who can bring family members, affecting education and settlement decisions.
• Public discourse that equates migration with social problems can influence local attitudes toward newcomers and increase social pressure on migrant communities.
• Narrowly framed migration priorities may not account for long-term demographic needs, social cohesion, or the diversity of contributions migrants make beyond formal labour shortages.

# Bottom line

Those at the centre of the debate urge policymakers and the public to consider individuals and family stories behind migration statistics. They call for a migration conversation that balances administrative targets with social outcomes: inclusion, dignity, and recognition of diverse roles people play in communities.