Study Reveals Misleading Claims About Australian Immigration Based on Misused Data

Claims of uncontrolled mass immigration in Australia are misleading and based on misinterpreted travel data, according to a new report from The Australian National University (ANU). The research reveals that alarmist narratives about immigration rates stem from the incorrect use of tourism and travel statistics that have no relation to actual migration patterns.

The study found that public commentators, activists, and some media outlets have been incorrectly using Permanent and Long-Term (PLT) movement data collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to push narratives about an immigration crisis. This misuse of data has distorted public understanding and fueled misinformation about Australia’s migration situation.

“PLT is tourism and travel behavior data, while NOM is migration data. They measure entirely different things,” explained Professor Alan Gamlen, Director of the ANU Migration Hub. “The ABS has repeatedly warned that their PLT data should not be used to draw conclusions about overseas migration.”

The researchers emphasize that net overseas migration (NOM) — the accurate measure of migrants arriving minus those departing — has actually been declining sharply since June 2023, contradicting the narrative of increasing immigration.

According to the study, PLT data significantly inflates migration figures, showing 23 to 30 percent more arrivals than actual migrant arrivals in recent years. Even more dramatically, PLT departures have been 115 to 135 percent higher than actual migrant departures.

“If PLT numbers are used instead of NOM to measure migration, you are led to believe there are 120,000 more migrants in Australia than is actually the case,” Professor Gamlen noted. “To put that in perspective, that figure is nearly two-thirds the size of Australia’s entire permanent migration program.”

The consequences of this statistical confusion extend beyond academic concerns. The researchers found that misinterpreted data has been used to fuel anti-immigration sentiment and has even been leveraged by extremist groups to encourage participation in immigration protests. Some of these demonstrations featured self-described neo-Nazis and white supremacists, according to the report.

Emeritus Professor Peter McDonald, co-author of the report, warned that using incorrect migration statistics poses serious risks to policy development and resource allocation. “NOM is the figure used to update Australia’s Estimated Resident Population — the number that governments use for funding, infrastructure planning and representation,” he explained.

“This makes NOM the benchmark for accurate migration figures to influence issues such as housing, infrastructure, labor planning, population change, budgeting and more. Using PLT instead of NOM risks poor policy decisions and misallocation of resources.”

The researchers stress that NOM represents the global standard for measuring migration and is officially recognized in Australia’s legal and institutional frameworks. “People often confuse NOM with permanent migration, but it is bigger than that. It also includes flows the Government can’t cap, like people departing and Australians returning home,” Professor McDonald added.

The report cautions that researchers who ignore the ABS warnings about the limitations of PLT data may be committing research misconduct. The errors in PLT-based claims become particularly pronounced during volatile periods, such as Australia’s post-COVID border reopening, resulting in misleading headlines and statistics.

As Australia continues to navigate immigration policy debates, the ANU researchers urge media outlets, commentators and policymakers to rely on accurate migration statistics rather than misinterpreted travel data to ensure informed public discourse and effective governance.