In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic led Australia to close its borders to the world.

This led to a migration shortfall. When borders finally reopened, there was a surge of ‘catch-up migration’.

In response to the migration rebound, both major political parties are calling for a return to ‘normal’.

 

But how do we define normal migration?

‘Normal’ migration isn’t a fixed measure, it’s a political judgment. Different countries have different expectations at different times.

In Cuba, for instance, just 0.03 per cent of residents were born overseas, while in the United Arab Emirates, more than 88 per cent of the population are foreign-born.

In Australia, about 30 per cent of residents were born overseas. This is the second highest proportion in the OECD, a club of rich countries.

But it hasn’t always been this way. In 1891, around a third of Australian settlers were foreign-born. But by 1947, after the Great Depression, two World Wars, and half a century of the White Australia Policy, this number had fallen below 10 per cent.

To make matters more complex, in the Australian migration debate, there are currently at least three main methods being used to define ‘normal’. Let’s compare what each method says about migration since the pandemic.

Method 1: Fixed-point projection

Figure 1: Actual vs expected Net Overseas Migration, fixed-point projection method.

The fixed-point projection approach is simple: pick what you think is a ‘normal’ historical moment and use it as a baseline.

Using June 2019 as the baseline, ANU demographer Peter McDonald found that by March 2024, Australia had 319,000 fewer arrivals and 286,000 fewer departures than expected.

In these scenarios, the COVID-19 pandemic caused a statistical surplus of 2,000 arrivals in 2019, then a NOM shortfall of 451,000 during lockdowns. Since Australia re-opened, this has been partially offset by a rebound of 418,000 migrants so far (Figure 1).

In sum, by March 2024, Net Overseas Migration (NOM) had added 31,000 fewer people to the population than it would have if migration had stayed at 2019 levels.

This rebound is slowing down. If the current rate of decline continues, we’ll reach the ‘June 2019 normal’ baseline in early 2025, accumulating a further 128,000 rebound arrivals in the meantime.

By then, the previous five-plus years of pandemic disruption will have led Australia to accumulate a total NOM excess of about 97,000 people – just under the seating capacity of Australia’s largest stadium – the MCG.

Method 2: Scenario-based projection

Figure 2: Actual vs expected Net Overseas Migration, scenario-based projection method.

The Australian Treasury uses forecasts based on scenarios to define normal. Its main 2020 scenario assumed migration would revert no higher than ’normal’ after lockdowns ended, and then remain flat or decline over time.

By March 2024, Treasury’s method shows a cumulative shortfall of 338,000 arrivals and 291,000 departures.

Basically, NOM added 21,000 fewer people to Australia’s population than Treasury expected. This is the difference between a pandemic NOM shortfall of 445,000 and a post-pandemic NOM rebound of 425,000, in round figures (Figure 2).

Assuming that current rate of NOM decline continues, Australia should return to Treasury’s projected trend by early 2025, by which time the continued NOM rebound would have contributed a further 132,000 to the population.

By then, the accumulated excess NOM over the pandemic era would reach 112,000. Averaged over this whole era, the NOM excess would be about 22,000 per year.

It’s likely policy cuts will cause NOM to bounce lower than 2019 normal in the not-too-distant future, eating into that excess.

Method 3: Trend-based projection

Figure 3: Actual vs. expected Net Overseas Migration, trend-based projection method

This method uses a historical trendline to predict what ‘normal’ would’ve been if COVID-19 hadn’t happened. This accounts for the fact that migration was rising steadily before the pandemic, and there was no reason to think that wouldn’t continue.

Above I use easily accessible ABS data from 2013 to 2019 to generate a simple linear trend and extrapolate that forwards in time. This suggests a cumulative NOM shortfall of 611,000 arrivals and 443,000 departures by March 2024.

Basically, NOM added 168,000 fewer people to Australia’s population between 2019 and 2024 than if NOM had followed its long-term 2013-2019 trend (Figure 3). This is the difference between a pandemic NOM shortfall of 508,000, and a post-pandemic NOM rebound of 340,000 to March 2024.

If the NOM decline continues at the current rate, we’ll return to the 2013 to 2019 trend-line in early mid-2025. By then, the NOM rebound would have added 86,000 more to the population, bringing the total cumulative post-pandemic NOM surplus to 426,000. This still wouldn’t fully offset the cumulative pandemic NOM shortfall of 508,000.

In other words, this third method suggests that, by the time migration returns to ‘normal’, Australia will have accumulated a NOM shortfall of 82,000 over five-plus years of pandemic disruption – not a surplus.

 

Will migration ‘splashes’ and ‘shockwaves’ continue?

One way to picture what’s happening is to think of COVID-19 disrupting migration like an object splashing into a pool of water. Initially, migration levels plunged sharply, creating a shortfall. This was followed by a resurgence, like the displaced water rushing back into the hole and splashing upwards.

However, this ‘migration splash’ isn’t the whole story. For example, emergency visa extensions were granted during the pandemic, which could continue to affect migration patterns until at least 2030.

Such ripple effects, or ‘shockwaves,’ may keep migration volatile for quite a while. And further NOM cuts may cause more splashes, leading to more shockwaves. Maybe we need to try and incorporate some of this oscillation into our projections. Figure 4 shows the beginnings of a way to think about that.

Figure 4: A new model of migration ‘splash’ and ‘shockwaves’ caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic

 

What should normal migration mean in future?

Defining ‘normal’ migration is more political than technical. Should we aim to return to pre-pandemic levels, or set a new normal? Opinions differ widely.

Some argue pre-pandemic migration was too high, citing infrastructure, housing, environmental and other concerns. Others say migration is too low, citing concerns like skills and labour shortages driving inflation. The facts are often lost in this debate.

What’s clear is that Australia has experienced less migration since the onset of the pandemic, not more. The simplest measure of this is Total Migration – arrivals plus departures; it counts migrants travelling in both directions across Australia’s border.

In the five and a half years since the pandemic hit, total migration has reached 13.9 million. In the five and a half years preceding, it was 15.1 million. Cumulatively, for the period since the pandemic, total migration is lower by 1.2 million migrants than for the same period prior. This is mainly because departures plummeted during the pandemic and have still not recovered much at all.

Contrary to claims of record-high migration, Australia is still far from catching up to the levels of migration that, in the pre-pandemic world, we expected to have had by now.

The real debate isn’t when migration will return to ‘normal’. It is what ‘normal’ should look like. This is an important question, and it must be informed by facts, not fear or misinformation.