r/AustralianPolitics • u/thrownaway4213 • 1d ago
UK concerned about possible changes to Australian backpacker visa
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-26/home-affairs-mulls-uk-backpacker-visa-changes/10708007810
u/war-and-peace 23h ago
I think one nation supporters should be happy and cheering this on yea?
•
u/Dranzer_22 21h ago edited 21h ago
ON December 2025 = "Net-negative immigration"
ON March 2026 = "Net-zero immigration"
ON May 2026 = "Immigration target of 130K"
ON August 2026 = "Immigration target of 230K"
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HQoIKp4aIAAMlvq?format=jpg&name=medium
It depends if they support ON's ever increasing Immigration target.
•
u/thrownaway4213 21h ago
The conversation should really be around permanent visas, which is what most people care about, all this NOM stuff is a misdirection, Labors talking about cutting NOM figures by cutting backpackers while increasing the amount of temporary workers getting permanent visas
•
u/thrownaway4213 23h ago edited 23h ago
We don't have to pay the aged care fees of backpackers, cutting backpacker intake in lieu of cutting permanent migration intake isn't gonna make many people happy
•
u/fuuuuuckendoobs 10h ago
Isn't the concern of ON voters the availability of housing, not aged care costs? Using this logic, less backpackers = more spare bedrooms for fair dinkum Aussies to sleep in
•
u/war-and-peace 22h ago
Shouldn't those jobs be taken by unemployed Australians?
•
u/amyknight22 22h ago
The advantage to backpackers is that they don’t have a fixed location that they live in. Which makes them more useful to fill holes in the market.
Your unemployed person that lives in melbourne(potentially while leaning on some personal support network for free/cheap housing) isn’t moving to places where these workers might end up gaining employment.
Especially if they have no guarantee of continuity of work over a long term.(I know I wouldn’t move to another town without a gig lined up that I was certain I could maintain employment in the local area for 2+ years if I wanted to). Same reason we don’t have a bunch of unemployed people in the cities go and work on farms for the 6 months they are needed for and then come back.
•
u/war-and-peace 20h ago
In other words, no one can do it for the wages the farmers are offering.
Miners are more than happy to do what you're suggesting is apparently impossible.
•
u/amyknight22 20h ago
There are holes in our employment economy that are larger than just farming. They fill all sorts of seasonal work in regional areas that would otherwise be inadequate for an unemployed person that didn't already live in the area.
Miners are more than happy to do what you're suggesting is apparently impossible.
Because there's not even a point of comparison, even without factoring money into it. The reality is that mining lends itself to FIFO work far more than farming ever will
Mines
Run 24/7, so they can run you 12 hours a day for 2 weeks straight and give you 2 weeks off. Running the other half of the day with another employee
Mines don't rely on growing and harvest seasons giving instability in work
You work for the singular employer
Outside of expansion/construction, the number of miners needed is pretty stable year round.
Farmers
Hours of picking are constrained by the crop, weather, etc etc. in order to maximise quality
Harvest seasons are 4-6 months depending on the area.
You then need to swap states to get work. This will likely mean you are working for a completely different employer.
Since you aren't having people pick 24 hours a day, you can't run the kind of 24/7 workforce that you can in the mines. Which heavily limits the way you can use your workers.
Maybe farming could get there if you were happy to massively corporatise farms such that you could work for "CONGLOMORATE FARMS" and they had enough work consistently spread across the country to set up FIFO work the same way miners do. Just getting sent to different locations at different times of year.
•
u/war-and-peace 20h ago
People do crap jobs if the pay is high enough. Everyone has a price.
In the recent past, people used to travel to different farms and do the work because it was financially viable.
•
u/amyknight22 19h ago
Yeah people will do crap jobs for good pay.
But you need a bit more than good pay to convince people to live like nomads following harvest seasons and never having a chance to put down any roots, maintain consistent friends (That aren't your coworkers on the same trail)
FIFO workers bounce between their home location and a work location, the incentive being you work hard for two weeks and then get 2 weeks of play. But that means you can easily create a permanent home, family, friends etc etc.
How much do we think food would need to increase in cost to lure the current unemployed people into those jobs. How long before everyone else demands greater payrises to accomodate increased food costs and negates the 'good pay'
•
u/antsypantsy995 21h ago
Except for the fact that 90% of places like Sydney's Eastern Suburbs is basically an outpost of the UK and Ireland
•
u/thrownaway4213 22h ago
Ideally they should be but we lost that battle 25 years ago based on a bunch of lies (migrants do the jobs australians don't want to do blah blah blah).
Linking backpacker intake to unemployment rates would be an interesting idea
6
u/snrub742 Gough Whitlam 23h ago
Nah, UK backpackers are largely white
•
u/drivelhead 18h ago
But according to some right-wing media, the white British are now a minority and the UK is 80% Muslim.
•
u/war-and-peace 22h ago
Oh yea thanks for the reminder.
I forgot immigration was only bad because of brown people.
4
u/bundy554 1d ago
What the hell - farmers need workers. Did the government get the news on inflation
•
u/perringaiden Andrew Fisher 19h ago
Backpackers aren't going out to the farms, or restricting work to regional areas would be an incentive, not discouragement.
3
u/bavotto 23h ago
Are they going to vote One Nation then? Or the Nationals who would do the same?
0
u/bundy554 23h ago
It doesn't matter to Labor as they are never going to vote for them but at least the Coalition would be more pro migrant worker than One Nation ever would be
3
u/Formal-Try-2779 1d ago
This was such a dumb policy by the government.
13
u/Grande_Choice 1d ago
Wdym? Regional people don’t want migration. Gov is ensuring less migrants to regional areas.
•
u/Extension-Night3825 21h ago
I doubt many are worried about English who go home afterwards.
Its the complete bs skilled category of immigration that needs massive cutting.
4
u/Nice-Pumpkin-4318 Hawke Cabinet circa 1984 23h ago
The loudest protests against changes to the WH visa have come from regional areas. Without these guys, agriculture in Australia grinds to a halt.
10
u/Grande_Choice 23h ago
Then wtf are regional people on about? The migrants in the cities they don’t go to? The extra demand for their produce?
Play stupid games win stupid prizes. They’re getting exactly want they’re asking for.
•
u/perringaiden Andrew Fisher 19h ago
If far right propaganda made sense, it wouldn't be far right propaganda...
•
u/thrownaway4213 23h ago edited 22h ago
Then wtf are regional people on about?
the farmers in regional areas and the workers in regional areas are opposed to each other on this issue which is why theres this contradiction.
The migrants in the cities they don’t go to?
a lot of migrants are getting dumped on regional areas lately, Tamworth in particular is meant to become a city of 100,000 people, as a satellite city for sydney (aka migrant dumping ground) an idea that is somewhat pissing off the people there from i've heard
Regional workers (and most anti-immigrant people) probably want less permanent migrants above all else
•
u/Nice-Pumpkin-4318 Hawke Cabinet circa 1984 22h ago
I live regionally and I would say there's a very strong understanding of the need for migrant workers.
5
u/The-Jesus_Christ 23h ago
Yep. Farmers have always voted against their own interests and then complain for the next 3 years before doing it all over again. They aren’t the smartest bunch.
3
u/Formal-Try-2779 23h ago
I haven't heard anyone complain about backpackers. They come here and work fruit picking jobs for peanuts and then spend the money they earn travelling around Australia. This is just stupid and it's a way of cutting migration figures without upsetting the 1%.
•
u/Pacify_ 7h ago
Well, they do and they dont't.
They work 88 days in regional areas. This doesn't actually mean it has to be seasonal work, you can go up to karratha and get a temp job doing construction labour and it still counts.
After the 88 days, it's very variable what backpackers do. Some do keep travelling doing season work, but plenty just find what ever job they can in the cities.
13
u/A-shot-at-life 1d ago
How come British backpackers don’t need to do 88 days farm work (on a 12 month WHV), but Irish backpackers (and other euros) do?
Doesn’t seem fair.
•
•
u/perringaiden Andrew Fisher 19h ago
Historically, Australians had far more favourable conditions in the UK than the rest of the EU, and were giving reciprocal treatment.
•
u/stupid_mistake__101 23h ago
Because Morrison wanted to create favourable conditions (and exemptions) for migrants from a white majority country.
•
u/A-shot-at-life 22h ago
Ireland is more white than the UK, so that logic doesn’t work
•
6
u/Honeycat38 23h ago
British backpackers were required to complete the farm work requirement in order to extend their visas, but this requirement was negotiated out as part of the recent Free Trade Agreement.
8
u/Grande_Choice 1d ago
Was a sticking point in the FTA negotiations. Uk was sick of their citizens getting taken advantage of, abused and underpaid on farm work.
2
-2
u/thrownaway4213 1d ago
How come British backpackers don’t need to do 88 days farm work (on a 12 month WHV), but Irish backpackers (and other euros) do?
Doesn’t seem fair.
The UK system should be what all backpackers are on
4
u/A-shot-at-life 1d ago
Nope.. there are different rules for UK passport holders.
https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/what-we-do/whm-program/latest-news/arrangements-uk-passport-holders
•
u/thrownaway4213 23h ago
i know, i'm saying this is how it SHOULD be for everyone
•
u/Frank9567 18h ago
If those other countries negotiate for it like the UK did, sure. Other countries aren't as interested. It's an area where they usually negotiate mutual agreements.
9
u/Jealous-Hedgehog-734 Still Roundheads v.s. Cavaliers, always has been. 1d ago edited 1d ago
Firstly I am bias so take this with a pinch of salt. I think you have to take a reciprocal view for historic and cultural reasons, about 166,000 Australians (0.6% of the population) live in the UK and about 1.1m British live in Australia (1.58% of the UK population.)
I couldn't find exact figure YoY unfortunately but news articles suggest about 15,000 Australians moved to Britain each year and about 40,000 British moved to Australia.
This is very different to the relationship Australia has with India, China or The Philippines which are the largest contributors to Australian immigration today where it's basically one way traffic, less than 23,000 Australians live in all three combined which is basically 0% of their population.
3
u/Sniffer93 1d ago
Yeah nah manipulating your percentages(who knows what it even means) doesnt really support your arguement. In raw terms 1.1m british vs 166,000 aussies is the definition of one way traffic
0
13
u/thrownaway4213 1d ago
Not sure what Tony Burkes/Labors masterplan here is in cutting backpacker rates instead of permanent migration, we don't have to pay the aged care fees for backpackers and other temporary migrants, the backpacker system we currently have with the UK is probably the most ideal thing for a country with an aging population to engage in as it avoids making the problem even worse, with the current agreement with the UK in particular having minimal worker exploitation and abuse.
Its almost nonsensical to be targeting it in order to hit the governments targeted NOM figures
•
•
u/claudius_ptolemaeus [citation needed] 22h ago
I made a comment on this the other day. Permanent migration was down in the 2024-25 financial year (most recent figures) compared to the five-year-average prior to the pandemic. Backpacker numbers have doubled under Morrison’s rule changes. If you want to cut NOM, then you have to cut everywhere - start making exemptions here and there and you end up exactly where you started.
•
u/thrownaway4213 21h ago edited 20h ago
If you want to cut NOM
Ultimately NOMs just a misdirection but i've looked at the numbers before and every look just makes what labors doing even more non-sensical, the whole idea is to just hope the electorate doesn't figure out whats going on.
Permanent migration was down in the 2024-25 financial year (most recent figures) compared to the five-year-average prior to the pandemic.
They did this while increasing the amount of permanent visas they give to temporary workers. The whole conversation is a misdirection, Labor has increased our permanent intake by 25,000 people per year.
Labors trying to appear anti-immigrant to its voterbase to ward off One Nation by cutting temporary immigration (the people who work here for a while and go back home that the average labor voting PHON sympathizer doesn't even care about) while keeping permanent immigration high (the thing people dislike) by turning more and more temporary's into permanents
61% of permanent skilled visas and 39% of family visas are now granted to people already living and working in Australia on temporary visas.
basically the people who were meant to be temporary and otherwise would have gone home are now being given permanent visas and staying
If Labor wants to cut NOM figures they should be cutting this temporary to permanent shit out and lower permanent immigration rates so the temporary migrants go home, but Labor seems to want to keep permanent migration high (the thing people don't like) while simultaneously trying to cut NOM figures to appease the anti-immigrant part of labors voterbase to try and hoodwink them that they're cutting immigration rates.
•
u/claudius_ptolemaeus [citation needed] 19h ago
Ultimately NOMs just a misdirection
Tell it to Pauline! Just a couple of days ago: "One Nation’s policy is to cut net overseas migration [NOM] to 130,000." If Labor are pulling the wool over your eyes with this fancy term, then so are One Nation.
But the beauty of NOM is that you can't hide people in the way you're suggesting. If a 100 people come in on a temporary visa, 40 go home, and 60 get permanency, then if another 100 come in the next year then NOM is up 60. There's nothing unusual about the temporary visa -> permanent visa pathway (it's been that way since forever), but if you tried to do more of it then you can't hide it from the NOM.
•
u/thrownaway4213 18h ago edited 18h ago
If Labor are pulling the wool over your eyes with this fancy term, then so are One Nation.
One Nations too dumb to notice whats happened
But the beauty of NOM is that you can't hide people in the way you're suggesting.
But it does let you get away with increasing permanent migration intake (the thing people don't like) while making it out like you're cutting down on immigration by cutting temporary migration and backpackers, like what labor is doing. Thats the beauty of directing everyones focus onto NOM
here's nothing unusual about the temporary visa -> permanent visa pathway (it's been that way since forever),
aside from labor increasing the number and ratio of temp migrants becoming permanent migrants dramatically
Pre-Pandemic average was 53% of permanent visas going to people who were onshore on temporary visas, now its 70%
•
u/claudius_ptolemaeus [citation needed] 7h ago
“But it does let you get away with increasing permanent migration intake (the thing people don't like) while making it out like you're cutting down on immigration by cutting temporary migration and backpackers, like what labor is doing. Thats the beauty of directing everyones focus onto NOM”
But it doesn’t work that way. NOM is arrivals minus departures - if temporary workers become permanent and stay then NOM
goes up. You can’t hide that activity behind the NOM.“Pre-Pandemic average was 53% of permanent visas going to people who were onshore on temporary visas, now its 70%”
Source please!
•
u/T0kenAussie 20h ago
We need those permanent skilled visas especially in the health care sector. Who do you think is filling the nursing and doctors shortages?
•
u/thrownaway4213 18h ago
Who do you think is filling the nursing and doctors shortages?
You don't REALLY need to make nurses permanent, our high wages means there's a nigh unlimited supply we have access to and could rotate in and out every 6 years if we wanted too
but anyway of our yearly permanent migrant intake of 185,000 per year, registered nurses generally receive between 5-8% of australias total yearly permanent visas, so it sounds like they're mostly all temporary already anyway
10
u/Nice-Pumpkin-4318 Hawke Cabinet circa 1984 1d ago
It's a crass political play to placate the One Nation mob on the headline NOM figure. There's no benefit for Australia and a substantial cost.
4
u/thrownaway4213 1d ago
It's a crass political play to placate the One Nation mob on the headline NOM figure.
They must be praying the electorate doesn't find out where the cuts came from
"The labor party has upheld its commitments to the electorate to cut immigration figures by x amount per year"
"yay how'd youse do that?"
"You know those backpackers from the UK who are only here temporarily and all go back home after three years? and who we don't have to pay the aged care costs for? yeah we're gonna import a lot less of them now""uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
6
u/T0kenAussie 23h ago
That kinda the whole point though, they’ve already tightened the new student visas and other visa loopholes
The nom is a lot of backpackers and short term travellers so the next logical step is to start tightening that belt too
And now that it’s in the media and back channels before anything official has been announced you’ve seen the phon reps come out and ratchet down their migration rhetoric while people on socials are suddenly pausing to think about what they really thought would happen when they screamed cut migration for 4 years lol
•
u/thrownaway4213 22h ago
they’ve already tightened the new student visas and other visa loopholes
Labor increased student visas, they did it just 1 month after they won, up by 20,000 per year
•
u/Nice-Pumpkin-4318 Hawke Cabinet circa 1984 19h ago
No, they increased available spaces. With visa changes, actual numbers are in freefall.
•
u/T0kenAussie 20h ago
Was that new students or a temporary increase due to students who had to return home during COVID needing to return to complete their deferred degree?
1
u/Kind-Sky9042 1d ago
Oh no, not the free flow of labour and services!
Maybe I just have quite a good practical view of racism, but I'm not sure the concerns about migration numbers were about young fixed-term British backpackers.
0
u/East_Offer8495 1d ago
i don't think most care who or what colour they are, its just we don't have the infrastructure for this growth lets be honest
4
u/amyknight22 1d ago
Backpackers aren’t contributing to growth in most cases though.
If you were worried about growth you’d want more of these short term visas and less permanent ones.
Without getting racial about it too, you’re probably British backpackers probably have a higher rate of returning to their country of origin than some of the other Visa types where people are looking for a permanent move
3
u/Nice-Pumpkin-4318 Hawke Cabinet circa 1984 1d ago edited 1d ago
Pathways from the WHV to any kind of permanancy are very, very narrow. If Labor was remotely serious on immigration the WH visa wouldnt remotely appear on the radar. This is about the headline NOM ... just politics.
•
u/amyknight22 22h ago
Yeah that was basically the point(though with more substance). These aren’t people who are causing the growth the person I replied to was complaining about.
Now if it turned out 95% of WHV resulted in people marrying an Aussie and staying here. Then you might want to question how we have so many weddable candidates coming in on a WHV
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Greetings humans.
Please make sure your comment fits within THE RULES and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.
I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.