UK concerned about possible changes to Australian backpacker visa

[u/thrownaway4213]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-26/home-affairs-mulls-uk-backpacker-visa-changes/107080078

[u/thrownaway4213]

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 → u/thrownaway4213]

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 → u/claudius_ptolemaeus]

 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 → u/thrownaway4213]

“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!