Incorrect reporting of ABS data fuelling false claims Australia has a mass migration problem

Widely circulated claims of out-of-control mass immigration in Australia are false and misleading and stem from the incorrect reporting of tourism and travel data that has nothing to do with migration, according to a major new report from The Australian National University (ANU).  

The report’s authors say that public commentators, activists and some media outlets are incorrectly using Permanent and Long-Term (PLT) movement data, which is collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), to claim Australia has a ‘migration problem’ and distort public understanding.  

This is despite repeated, clear comments from the ABS that PLT does not measure migration but instead records people coming in and out of Australia, and includes tourists, temporary visa holders, returning residents and repeated short absences.  

ANU Professor Alan Gamlen explains that net overseas migration (NOM) — the number of migrants arriving in Australia minus the number of migrants departing Australia — is in fact falling sharply and has been since June 2023. 

He said the misuse of PLT data is generating sensational news headlines that are fuelling misinformation and peddling false narratives, while also undermining public policy on migration. 

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

“Researchers who ignore those warnings from the ABS are likely committing research misconduct – a serious offence at any research institution. 

“Under volatile conditions, like the country’s border reopening post-COVID-19, the errors in PLT-based claims explode, producing charts and headlines that are factually wrong. 

“False claims based on this misused data were used by extremist groups to encourage participation in a series of immigration marches this year which featured self-described neo-Nazis and white supremacists.” 

According to the researchers, in recent years, PLT arrivals have been 23 to 30 per cent higher than actual migrant arrivals, and PLT departures have been 115 to 135 per cent 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. To put that in perspective, that figure is nearly two-thirds the size of Australia’s entire permanent migration program,” Professor Gamlen said. 

Co-author Emeritus Professor Peter McDonald said the consequences of the misuse of PLT data extend beyond public discourse. 

“NOM is the figure used to update Australia’s Estimated Resident Population (ERP) — the number that governments use for funding, infrastructure planning and representation,” he said.  

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

“NOM is the standard used globally and is Australia’s official measurement of migration that is built into the country’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.”