The politics of immigration is far more complex than a simple contest between a “pro-immigration” left and a “tough-on-borders” right, according to a new study. 

Researchers at the ANU’s Migration Hub used a two-dimensional framework to separate economic attitudes, such as labour-market regulation, from cultural attitudes, such as multiculturalism, in mapping publicly stated positions of every member of the 48th Australian Parliament. 

Lead researcher Professor Alan Gamlen said the findings were more complex than expected. 

“Immigration debates in Australia are often framed as a contest between ‘pro-immigration’ progressives and ‘tough-on-borders’ conservatives. This analysis of every member of the 48th Parliament shows a more complex reality,’ Prof Gamlen said. 

“Most Labor, Greens and Independent politicians are culturally open but economically closed on immigration, while most Coalition MPs are economically open but divided over multiculturalism,” he said.  

“In other words, the key divides in Canberra are not simply between Left and Right, but between different combinations of economic and cultural openness to immigration.” 

Among the key findings were that Labor, Greens and most Independents are culturally open but economically closed to immigration. 

“They strongly support multiculturalism, but most favour tighter labour-market regulation, which tends to restrict employer access to migrant workers,’ Prof Gamlen said. 

The Coalition is economically open but divided on multiculturalism, the study found. 

“Coalition MPs and Senators are united in support of a flexible labour market but are split between those who take a favourable view of multiculturalism and those who are more sceptical. Most express only moderate views either way,” Prof Gamlen said. 

Coalition Centrists are the most consistently open to immigration of all parliamentarians, according to the study. 

“Moderate and centre-right Coalition groups tend to support both multiculturalism and flexible labour markets, making them the group most consistently open to immigration overall,” Prof Gamlen said. 

One Nation is culturally closed but more economically open than its rhetoric suggests, the study found. 

“While opposed to multiculturalism, One Nation representatives also support flexible labour-market settings, revealing a more mixed position on immigration than commonly assumed,’ Prof Gamlen said. 

He said that unlike many other Western democracies, Australia has very few politicians who oppose immigration on both economic and cultural grounds. Only two MPs fall into this category, and neither is from the major parties. 

Across the whole parliament, cultural openness to immigration is considerably stronger than economic openness with 74 per cent of MPs and Senators expressing support for multiculturalism and 60 per cent favouring stronger labour-market regulation, the study reported. 

Prof Gamlen said the pattern was striking because it reversed common expert expectations. 

“Specialists generally emphasise the economic benefits of migration and the need to manage cultural impacts, yet parliamentarians tend to be culturally open and economically more cautious,” he said. 

The report produced three key findings. 

“First, Australia’s federal parliament overall leans culturally in favour of immigration but is economically more ambivalent, the study report said. 

“Second, even the Australian political groups most heavily associated with anti-immigration rhetoric are more internally complex than they appear. 

“Third, and more consequentially, the “Closed Left” position—economically closed and culturally closed – is almost entirely absent in the current federal parliament. 

“Together, these findings show that Australia’s immigration debate cannot be understood through a simple Left–Right frame. Instead, it is shaped by cross-cutting dimensions of economic and cultural openness that produce new alignments, internal contradictions and, at times, strange political bedfellows,” the report said. 

The study analysed public speeches, parliamentary debates and voting records, and media statements from every Senator and Member of the 48th Parliament. 

Using an AI-assisted analysis tool, the researchers then coded each politician’s stance on labour-market deregulation and multiculturalism on a scale from –2 (strongly closed) to +2 (strongly open).