In this interview, Daniel Wild appeared on The Mark Levy Morning Show 2GB to discuss the IPA’s research on immigration
All media appearances posted onto the IPA website are directly related to the promotion and dissemination of IPA research.
Below is a transcript of the interview.
Mark Levy:
Immigration is something we should be well all focused on at the moment because we are currently living through one of the greatest social experiments in a generation, all because of our mass immigration, a plan over the last few years from the Labour government to essentially import workers and students to pump up the economy rather than focus on growth domestically. The fact is simple, the increase to our nation’s-
… of the pandemic has been the largest since federation, and it’s the reason that we’ve seen added cost pressures on everything, including food, housing, and leisure. And Daniel Wild, the Deputy Executive Director for the Institute of Public Affairs has written a terrific piece on this today in the Daily Telegraph. I thought I’d catch up with him. He’s on the line from Melbourne. Daniel, good morning to you.
Daniel Wild:
Morning, Mark.
Mark Levy:
Mate, great to catch up. Let’s start off with the Labour side of things here, and I’m indebted to you for putting this into context with some numbers today. Maybe you can just let our listeners know how bad this has got, immigration under the current government?
Daniel Wild:
Yeah, sure thing. So look, if you look at the long run historical context from about the end of World War Two until the end of the Howard era in 2007, we were bringing in about 90,000 migrants on net into our country each year, which was manageable. We had a very successful migration programme for many decades. I think it enriched our nation, it made our economy better and I think overwhelmingly it was successful. And most people would share that view, but keep that number in mind, 90,000. In the first full financial year of the Labour government, we had over 500,000. And then the year after, 400,000, and now they’re saying we’re going to have 335,000. So remember 90,000 up to 500,000. These are astronomical numbers. And there was just one other, I guess, piece of context that’s interesting, which is: you think about the Hawke-Keating government. 156 months, that period of government. Now this government, the Albanese government brought in as many migrants on a net basis in its first 27 months as the entire Hawke-Keating government did in its entire 156 months. I mean these numbers are just absolutely astonishing.
Mark Levy:
They certainly are, and I’m glad you put some context there because a lot of people hear a lot about immigration. But when you rattle off those numbers and you compare it to what we had under the Hawke-Keating government, which was there for, as you point out, 156 months, it’s there for everyone to see. You also write today, Daniel, that 32% of Australia’s population were born overseas. How does that compare to other countries around the world?
Daniel Wild:
Well, it’s the highest of any comparable nation. New Zealand’s at 28. Canada, 22. UK, and think about all the challenges they’re having in the UK, 17%, and the US at 15%. We’re at 32, so we’re double the US, almost double the UK. Now, Australia has always had a relatively high share of our population born overseas, at least since the 1970s onwards. And the issue we’ve got here is that the numbers have just been exploding, but there is no consent of the community. We haven’t had our political leaders explain to us why we need to have such large numbers and how those numbers are going to be managed.
And you mentioned just a moment ago, the pressure that this is placing on social services we know about, but it’s also … when was the last time you tried to get a tradie? How long did that take for a tradie to come round? How hard is it to get your kids or your grandkids into a local childcare centre, or getting the kids into a local swimming pool, or a GP, or the congestion on our roads? Now, I’m not blaming the individual migrants themselves. Of course, you’d want to come to our country because we’re the best country on Earth. I’m blaming the government. The government has got this completely wrong and they simply won’t admit it.
Mark Levy:
Well, I would’ve thought this is an opportunity here for the opposition to seize on this. And we know that Sussan Ley is working out her immigration policy as we speak with her Liberal and National colleagues. What do they need to do here? Because obviously Labour has pushed ahead, it seems like a bit of a free-for-all. Well, clearly the Liberals need to rein it in to bring this under control.
Daniel Wild:
Yeah, you’re a hundred percent right. They do need to rein it in and it is out of control at the moment. It would probably surprise a lot of your listeners to learn that there is actually no cap, these migration number. So the government doesn’t actually have control of this. They can say, “Look, we’re going to cut it,” but at the end of the day, if you apply for a visa and the visa meets the criteria and it’s ticked off, you can come in. So basically there’s no control over the number. So the number one point for the Liberal Party is to actually say, “We’re going to have a cap. We’re going to cap the number of people that can come in, and if we reach that number by July of a given year, well, so be it. That’s all, who’s coming in that year.”
And by the way, the cut needs to be big. It needs to be substantial, it needs to mean something. I’ve suggested that they cut it back to about 90,000 per year, which as I said before is the long run average, back when migration was working in our national interest. But what they also have to do here is they have to apply a values test. We’ve seen such significant social division in our country, and it’s true, we’ve had it in the past. We’ve had sectarian division with Catholics and Protestants in the past. We’ve had ethnic division in the past, but in my lifetime, I can’t remember the kind we’re currently having. So we actually have to take the citizenship test seriously, and we have to be willing to say, “Look, you’re not allowed into our country if you’re not going to sign up to our values and apply them in your day-to-day life.”
Mark Levy:
Because it seems like, in some of the things I’ve heard from the opposition leader, there was a suggestion at one point she was going to nominate a number and then there was a suggestion, “Oh, well, we’re not going to nominate a number.” I think the Australian people want to know exactly what they plan to cut immigration by. Do you agree?
Daniel Wild:
Yes, to do that, but they need to make sure they get it right. They took a migration cut to the last election and they completely bottled it. And I was a candidate for the Liberal Party at that election, and I couldn’t explain to voters what the policy was. So they have to make sure they actually get the number right. Now, I don’t want to get too technical, but Tony Burke, who’s the immigration minister, keeps talking about this number, which is the permanent migration intake number. That’s a distraction. That’s a sideshow. That actually doesn’t really relate to the number of people coming into our country. It’s based around different visa arrangements. So they have to actually target a net overseas migration number, and then once they put the number out there, they’ve got to stick to it. They’ve got to explain to Australians why they’ve chosen that number, and they’ve got to explain why Australians’ lives will be better. You can’t just put it out there and forget about it. You’re going to have to talk about it every single day. So yes, they absolutely need to put a number to the Australian people, but I would encourage the Liberal Party to take the time to get it right and then campaign on it every single day from now til the election.
Mark Levy:
You just reminded me of something there, Daniel, when you mentioned Tony Burke’s name, the immigration minister turning up to Sydney Airport recently to welcome Gazan refugees. He’s not turning up to welcome skilled migrants. He’s not turning up to welcome people that are going to make a difference to the country. No, he turns up to the airport to welcome Gazan refugees. Look, while we’re talking about all of this, that the other point you make in your piece today is a cap should be imposed on universities and these foreign students is another area in which we need closer examination, I would’ve thought.
Daniel Wild:
Well, exactly right. I mean, for a couple of reasons. One is that foreign students make up the single largest cohort of migration. It was about 40% in the most recent full financial year data that we have. Now, the government tells us they’re running a skilled migration programme. They’re saying, “Well, we’re bringing skilled people in.” Well, it’s only about 17% of net overseas migration number that is skilled. I mean, they’re having a laugh at our expense.
[inaudible 00:07:47] percent are students. And the problem you’ve got here is you’ve got universities such as the University of Sydney where over 50% — 50% of their student cohort — is from overseas, is degrading the quality of education for Australian students. We have stories of tutorials being held in Mandarin and in foreign languages, and it’s an incredibly alienating experience for domestic students. But the other thing I’ll point you to is the government’s own review in 2023 explained how this massive amount of foreign students is undermining our society and our economy. What they said was that the population costs are borne by communities that might not benefit from the value of international education. Now, what does that mean in plain language? It means that mainstream Australians bear the cost that these fat cat vice chancellors get all the benefits.
Mark Levy:
Brilliant, brilliant. Daniel, I’ve got messages coming through thick and fast. There’s one of the best things I’ve heard in recent times about immigration. This man should be Immigration Minister. Daniel, it’s nice to know someone’s out there prosecuting the case for a drastic reduction in net overseas migration. Let’s hope those on the conservative side of politics are listening because they need to come out with a very strong position on this. And I think what you say today is bang on the money, and you’re getting plenty of support from our listeners as well. Thanks for jumping on and having a chat. Well done.
Daniel Wild:
My pleasure. Thank you very much.
Mark Levy:
Good on you, mate. Daniel Wild, he’s the Executive Director of the Institute of Public Affairs.
This transcript with Daniel Wild talking on The Mark Levy Morning Show 2GB from 26 November 2025 has been edited for clarity.
