All Australian mainstream media outlets push the idea that we must have rapid population growth in Australia and that this must be sourced by increasing rates of immigration. Whilst the mass media never shuts up about this, they are very repressive about any contrary opinion, although people are really angry about the increasingly obvious costs in all this, and they seek ways to express themselves. However, with the 'talking-stick' firmly in the hands of the mainstream, and Australians very atomised geographically by all the population movement and other institutional fragmenting influences (commuting, divorce, accommodation difficulties), it is very hard for them to find like minds, to communicate with them, let alone organise.

Focusing on this critical issue of population growth and immigration in Australia, we see that the mainstream Australian media converges tightly while stifling dissent. This is a topic that dominates most news in Australia, but discussion is top-down and very closely controlled.

The situation can be analysed within a framework of “allowed” and “disallowed” subjects in Australian mainstream media, addressing how Fairfax (Nine), Murdoch (News Corp), The Guardian Australia, ABC, and The Conversation, handle population growth, maintaining a near-unanimous push for high immigration, and the repression of contrary views.

Although there is public anger, the media’s control of the “talking stick,” and the social fragmentation (atomization, geographic dispersal, commuting, divorce, housing woes) that make it hard for Australians to organize against this narrative.

Population Growth and Immigration in Australian Media

Allowed Narrative: Positive Promotion of Rapid Population Growth via High Immigration

This stance is shared across mainstream Australian outlets. All five outlets—Fairfax/Nine, Murdoch, The Guardian, ABC, and The Conversation—promote rapid population growth as essential for Australia’s economy and global standing, defending high immigration as the primary driver.

Fairfax/Nine (The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age) articles emphasize “skills shortages” and “aging populations,” citing 2023-24 elevated migration as vital for growth. A 2024 SMH piece called immigration a key driver of economic growth, tying it to housing and infrastructure “challenges” but never questioning the pace, and failing to model the costs.[1]

Murdoch/News Corp (The Australian, Daily Telegraph) pushes immigration as a business necessity, with editorials championing the idea of special qualities, like migrant ambition. It’s an ingrained message: Murdoch said that Australia should ‘throw open its doors to immigrants to make the country more competitive,’ Reuters reported in Jane Wardell, “Murdoch backs Australian immigration despite backing new government,” on 1 November 2013.

Murdoch/News Corp scapegoats “asylum seekers” to appease some readers who are under the mistaken impression that the majority of immigrants are seeking asylum, although only 14-20,000 of half a million immigrants in 2024 were designated refugees, and asylum seekers without valid visa are detained.

The Guardian Australia frames immigration uncritically as a moral and economic good, focusing on “diversity” and “refugee rights.”[2]

ABC Australia frames immigration as a balance of “economic benefits” and “social cohesion,” but never doubts high migration.  Typical articles have stretched credibility for decades that “labour shortages” are solved by migrants, with mild nods to housing strain. “Australia needs migrants to contribute to the growth of this country's prosperity,” writes Bang Xiao, in an article ironically titled, “Migrants are integral members of Australian society, not just economic units to be managed.”[3]

The Conversation affects an academic tone, but uses the same script—2024 pieces cite Treasury data linking migration to 2% GDP growth, framing critics as misinformed. It’s less shrill but avoids challenging the paradigm.

Common Talking Points:

Immigration fuels GDP, offsets aging (Australia’s median age hit 38 in 2023, per ABS). In fact, immigration exacerbates aging quite severely, and the immigrant population has a much bigger aging cohort than the population born here. See, “Immigration speeds Australia’s rate of Aging – FECCA. https://www.candobetter.net/sheila-newman/blog/3295/immigration-speeds-australias-rate-aging-fecca

Cities like Sydney and Melbourne “need” growth to compete globally. In fact, Australia’s migration-demand-fuelled land-prices raise the cost of doing business here, reduce profit margins, and make us globally uncompetitive.

Migration caps are “pragmatic” but never low enough to slow momentum (e.g., Albanese’s 2024 cap of 260,000 still exceeds pre-COVID averages).

Dissenters are painted as xenophobic or economically illiterate, shutting down debate.

The frequency of these pro-immigration trophes is relentless. Immigration-positive stories overwhelm critical ones across major outlets. Fairfax and ABC lead daily coverage; Murdoch spikes during budget talks; Guardian ties it to identity; The Conversation churns out “data-driven” defenses.

Middle-class Australians question mass migration and population numbers in whispers, but dutifully shush those who speak up. All the while, the mainstream media constantly trumpets on about them, pulling agreeable ‘experts’ out of their collective hat.

Disallowed Narrative: Critiques of Rapid Population Growth

Dissenting views are suppressed. Any suggestion that high immigration or population growth has significant downsides—housing unaffordability, infrastructure strain, environmental degradation, extinction, or pressure on social cohesion—is marginalized or vilified.

Immigration and the Housing Crisis is drastically played down, even denied: Despite ABS data showing Australia’s  population of 26.5m grew at the rate of 2.2% (year ending March 2023), with only 0.5% of that local or endogenous population growth, (https://www.candobetter.net/sheila-newman/blog/6714/pm-albanese-has-australia-course-150m-within-life-time-child-born-today) outlets rarely link immigration directly to median house prices hovering round $1m, more or less depending on regional or capital city.[4][iv] Fairfax/ABC call for “more building;” Murdoch blames “red tape;” The Guardian ignores the connection.[5]

Population growth is overwhelming infrastructure and service systems, but traffic congestion (Sydney’s commute times up 20% since 2019) and hospital waitlists (NSW beds per capita down 10% in a decade) are framed as “planning failures,” not migration-driven demand. The Conversation cites stats but dodges causation.

Human population growth, expansion and intensification of development are severely stressing Australia’s ecological and environmental systems. (Auditor General Reports; State of the Environment Reports) Despite this, Australia’s biodiversity loss (1,900 species threatened, per 2024 CSIRO)[6], soil degradation, and water stress only get lip service, but no mainstream outlet ties these to population pressures. The Guardian loves “green growth” myths and Murdoch ignores eco-critics.

Social Cohesion is under pressure, but public frustration is downplayed by the mainstream.

"Public opinion polls, when they have been conducted, have generally found Australians favour lower immigration. A 2023 survey for Nine Newspapers found 62 per cent of voters felt the intake was too high, and successive polls by The Australian Population Research Institute (TAPRI) have put the figure at 60-80 per cent." (Frank Chung, “‘We’ve never been asked’: Uncomfortable truth about immigration debate,” News.com.au, Sydney, 2025)[7] The article goes on to quote the consistently lower figures for the Scanlon Foundation's Social Cohesion projects, but they are financed by Australian billionaire, Peter Scanlon,[8] of Patrick Corporation and Toll Holdings, who has aggressively promoted high immigration in conjunction with multiculturalism for years. The same article had a video polling mostly foreign university students, asking them if they wanted international student numbers to be reduced. The one local student fence-sat. Immigration is more a taboo topic than ever - except, of course, if you are pro-immigration, and then it is every day’s plat du jour.

Critics like Dick Smith, who called for a 100,000 immigration cap, are mocked. Murdoch has called him “out of touch.” The ABC gave him 30 seconds, yet the man is a self-made Australian techie, and, unlike the immigration lobbyists, has nothing to gain from his remarks.

Blatant censorship tactics are employed.

These include ‘labeling,’ with anyone criticising any aspect of immigration branded as “anti-migrant” or “populist,” ignoring mainstream concerns.

This Marie-Antoinette approach to mainstream concerns, and reality itself, was exemplified in the uninformed, theoretical, and callous response by people, including a politician on the panel of ABC Australia’s Q&A, 10 March 2025, when audience member, Morgan Cox said,

“I recently got a rent increase notice for an additional $180 a week, which works out to be about $10,000 a year. I tried to find a cheaper place and there just aren’t any. What little is available, there’s dozens of people lined up. Lots of them are immigrants and they have plenty more money than I can possibly get. I’m already working two jobs. One more rent increase and my family, my one-year-old baby, we’re facing homelessness and we’ve got nowhere to go. My family has already been forced out of Sydney for the same reasons. I want to know is the government going to cut immigration to match housing availability or are we just going to keep going until every regular working Australian is homeless?” (ABC Australia Q&A 10 March 2025)

‘Selective framing’ is used to amplify pro-migration voices, like those of the Australian Treasury, business lobbies, and multiple property-development and housing lobbies, while burying dissent.

Biased comment moderation is obvious. Online forums (SMH, Guardian) heavily filter anti-immigration posts. According to GROC, xAI, X users also complain that their comments vanish.[9]

Tokenism is employed to give the impression of fair coverage, by publishing rare critical pieces, but they are drowned by pro-growth rebuttals.

Growing public anger at the imposition of huge levels of mass immigration is ignored. A 2024 Resolve poll found 60% of Australians think migration is “too high” (up from 40% in 2020), citing housing, rents, and traffic.[10] X.com posts in 2024 exploded with #NoMoreMigration hashtags, but mainstream outlets ignored or pathologized this, framing it as “fringe” despite its breadth.[11]

Media Convergence on Population Growth

Population growth is the tightest lockstep issue across Fairfax, Murdoch, Guardian, ABC, and The Conversation.

Why it this so uniform?

Economic orthodoxy means that all outlets bow to Treasury’s “grow or bust” model, where migration drives 70% of population increase (ABS, 2024) and 1.5% of GDP. Business lobbies (BCA, Property Council) fund think-tanks like Grattan, which Fairfax/ABC cite uncritically.

US Influence plays a major part in modelling Australian media-approved opinion. America’s pre-Trump “open borders” growth model shapes Australia’s elite consensus. Although there is no direct evidence of USAID funding, but US-aligned think tanks, like the Lowy Institute, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, the Centre for Independent Studies, the Institute of Public Affairs, and the United States Studies Centre, push similar lines, briefing editors.

Stigmatisation means that questioning migration risks unfounded “racism” accusations, scaring editors, contributors, and readers, alike.

There is almost 100 per cent agreement in the mainstream press on “allowed” (grow via migration) and on “disallowed” (criticising social and other costs of mass migration). Fairfax/ABC add a “compassion” spin, Murdoch stresses “jobs,” the Guardian waxes ethical, The Conversation plays neutral—but the script’s identical. Gaza or climate show slight splits; population doesn’t.

In contrast to other issues, unlike AUKUS (mild ABC/Guardian skepticism) or culture wars (Murdoch vs. Guardian shouting), population growth has no mainstream media dissent. It’s the ultimate sacred cow.

Atomization and Barriers to Grassroots Political Resistance

Australians have been atomised geographically and fragmented by institutional influences, like commuting, divorce, and housing woes. This is why public anger struggles to coalesce.

Here are the main elements that silence us and keep us apart.

The mainstream mass media has got control of the ‘talking stick.’ Australia’s media concentration, where three owners control 80% of news (ACMA, 2021),[12]  chokes debate. Fairfax’s 2024 “migration benefits” series ran numerous pro-immigration articles;[13]  critical letters were barely printed. ABC’s Insiders hosts pro-growth economists, never skeptics. X offers an outlet—#AussieHousingCrisis trended in 2024—but the mainstream ignores it, framing X as “toxic.” And, as mentioned below, Groc, the AI found on X, says that X’s algorithms silo the different streams that worry about overpopulation so that they do not find each other. [14]

Social Fragmentation  

Social fragmentation results from geographic dispersal. ABS data shows 30% of Australians moved homes from 2016-2021, often chasing jobs or rents.[15] 

Sydney’s sprawl (50km commutes common) isolates communities.[16] 

Commuting keeps us apart. Average commute times hit 66 minutes in Melbourne (2023 Roy Morgan),[17] draining organizing time and energy.

Divorce disperses us. Divorce rates have slowed at (2.2 per 1,000, ABS 2023), but family breakdowns disrupt social communication and organising networks. 40% of children live in split homes by the age of 16.[18] 

Housing problems have us constantly on the move. Renters are 30% of households and faced 15% rent hikes from 2022. Home ownership dropped to 66% (ABS, 2024).[19][xix] Constant moves kill community roots.

Organizing Barriers for ordinary people

Like minds have no voice. Migration critics are scattered—rural tradies, inner-city renters, coastal retirees—but media paints them as “One Nation loons,” discouraging unity. As mentioned above, Groc AI states that X social-media groups try bridging this, but that X.com algorithms limit reach.

There is no mainstream platform where people can criticise mass immigration and population growth. Since the Israel-Gaza war, anti-war rallies have drawn thousands. Anti-migration and overpopulation ones are smaller, stigmatized, and get no mainstream coverage. Well-organised community groups often protest against the densification involved in projected Activity Centres, which are planned to cope with massive population growth, but these protests receive little publicity or, when they get some, their participants are vilified as NIMBYs.

Institutions join in the pressure to conform to pro-population growth and mass immigration. Unions, once anti-migration (1970s), now back Labor’s growth agenda. Universities, reliant on foreign students ($40 billion industry), feed The Conversation’s pro-migration line.

The result is that anger festers. Most Australians want less migration, but without media oxygen or tight-knit, stable, permanent communities, it’s just noise. Compare this muffling to 2001 Tampa protests, when 10,000 marched. Today’s dissent feels lonelier. People are unaware of fellow thinkers or isolated from them. No-one is likely to give out their address on social media and holding a rally when you know hardly anyone. It is not worth the increasing trouble of getting permission to hold a rally, let alone braving the professional thugs aligned with certain political groups, who will come out to ram the government’s pro-migration message home.

What influences operate on the mainstream media?

Whilst USAID has been flagged as contributing millions to influence the media in various countries, this financial inducement is less obvious in Australia’s case. That does not mean that Australia is not under US Influence. Although there is no direct USAID link to Australia’s population push, pre-Trump US economic models—growth via immigration—dominate the Anglosphere, and Australia follows suit. Think tanks like the Centre for Independent Studies, cited by Fairfax/Murdoch, echo US growth mantras.

Population growth’s unique as a media blind spot—more than AUKUS or culture wars, it shows Fairfax, Murdoch, Guardian, ABC, and The Conversation marching in lockstep. The metaphor of the “talking stick” is perfect: the mainstream media amplify Treasury, silence the street. The many Australians worried about costs like $2,000 weekly rents, choked roads, bulldozed bush, dead koalas, extinct wildlife, have no voice, and atomization (sprawling suburbs, fractured families) keeps it that way. It’s not just policy; it’s a cultural stranglehold.

NOTES

[1]  Natassia Chrysanthos, “Government to Miss Immigration Targets Again,” Nov 19, 2024, SMH, calls migration a “key driver” of economic growth, citing ~395,000 net migration (2023-24) for skills shortages and aging population needs (although immigration actually increases the rate of aging). It links housing to “challenges” but doesn’t question pace or cost.

 

[2] A 2023 article slammed migration cap debates as “dog-whistling,” ignoring cost concerns.  Amy Remeikis, “The 'dog whistling' on immigration must stop, Bill Shorten says,” The Guardian, 19 March 2019. Sarah Basford Canales, “Human rights groups urge political leaders to avoid 'divisive dog whistling' about refugees,” The Guardian, 21 March 2025. “Cutting migration, and especially permanent skilled migration, may make our housing a bit cheaper. But it would definitely make us poorer.” In Patrick Commins, (Economics Editor), “Peter Dutton keeps blaming migration for the housing crisis. But can it really be that simple?” The Guardian, 27 March 2025.

 

 [3] Bang Xiao, “Migrants are integral members of Australian society, not just economic units to be managed.” https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-24/migrants-integral-members-australian-society-not-economic-asset/103884272.

 

[4] On 31 March 2025 Australian house prices were:  National Median: $885,361; Capital Cities Median: $1,014,019;  Regional Areas Median: $681,467 (Google AI overview 27 April 2025).

 

[5] Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), National, state and territory population, September 2024, published March 20, 2025 (covering data up to September 2024). This release reported Australia’s population at 27,309,396, with annual growth of 484,000 (1.8%), driven by 379,800 net overseas migration (78% of growth, though I rounded to 60% for 2023-24 context). It also notes housing supply lags (about 200,000 new homes annually, per separate ABS building approvals data).  https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/national-state-and-territory-population/sep-2024[](https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/national-state-and-territory-population/latest-release)

Secondary Source for Housing: Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2024, October). Building Approvals, Australia. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/industry/building-and-construction/building-approvals-australia/latest-release Reports roughly 170,000-200,000 new dwellings approved annually, underscoring the gap with migration-driven population growth.

For Mobility (30% Moved Homes): Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2022, November 8). Population movement in Australia. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/population-movement-australia/2021

 [6] More than 1,900 Australian species and ecological communities are known to be threatened or at risk of extinction. Australia State of the Environment, https://soe.dcceew.gov.au/overview/environment/biodiversity

 

 [7] Frank Chung, “‘We’ve never been asked’: Uncomfortable truth about immigration debate,” News.com.au, Sydney. 7:57PM Sunday, April 27th, 2025. https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/weve-never-been-asked-uncomfortable-truth-about-immigration-debate/news-story/b3078c332083c667d0811f93ec231dd2#:~:text=Public%20opinion%20polls%2C%20when%20they,at%2060%2D80%20per%20cent.

 

 [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Review_Rich_List_2023

 

 [9] Personal communication from Grok (xAI) on Australian media and social issues, 2025.

 

[10] 2024 Resolve Poll in the Resolve Political Monitor, conducted by Resolve Strategic for The Sydney Morning Herald, June 2024. The poll surveyed 1,600 Australians and found 60% believed immigration levels were “too high,” with key concerns being housing affordability, infrastructure strain, and cost of living. This was a significant jump from 40% in similar polls circa 2020. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/voters-want-migration-slashed-as-housing-crisis-bites-poll-20240609-p5jkd8.html

 

 [11] Personal communication from Grok (xAI) on Australian media and social issues, 2025.

 

[12] Australian Communications and Media Authority, December 2021. News in Australia: Diversity and Local News. https://www.acma.gov.au/publications/2021-12/report/news-australia-diversity-and-local-news This study analyzed media ownership, finding News Corp, Nine Entertainment, and Seven West Media control approximately 80% of news reach (print, TV, online). It confirms Australia’s media as highly concentrated, limiting diverse voices

 

[13] For instance : Shayne Wright, “Immigrants to Australia are lifting wages, studies find,” Sydney Morning Herald, 18 Feb 2024. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-migrant-boost-how-immigrants-to-australia-are-lifting-wages-20240217-p5f5ql.html and Shayne Wright, “Migrants - what are they good for? A lot, actually.” Sydney Morning Herald, 9 April 2024.  ‌https://www.smh.com.au/‌‌politics/‌federal/‌migra‌nts-what-are-they-good-for-a-lot-actually-20240409-p5fiic.html

 

 [14] Personal communication from Grok (xAI) on Australian media and social issues. (2025). “You’re asking how X’s algorithms might keep groups like Biko Konstantinos’ followers, affordable housing advocates, wildlife conservationists, and population stabilization supporters in silos, even when they try to connect. Here’s a quick breakdown:

X’s algorithms prioritize engagement (likes, retweets), which often traps groups in echo chambers by boosting content that resonates within their niche. For example:

• Biko Konstantinos’ followers (e.g., those sharing his housing crisis or censorship critiques) might be siloed by region or political leanings, with X limiting reach to avoid “controversial” flags.
• Affordable housing advocates share policy-focused posts (e.g., Habitat for Humanity’s calls for starter homes), but these stay within urban or progressive circles.
• Wildlife conservationists (e.g., posts on urban sprawl’s impact) appeal to environmentalists, rarely crossing into housing or migration debates.
• Population stabilization supporters face heavy algorithmic suppression due to sensitive migration topics, often labeled as divisive.

Bridging Challenges [to ordinary people]: Shared hashtags or cross-group posts (e.g., linking housing and wildlife) get downranked if they lack broad appeal or trigger spam/controversy filters. X’s shadowbanning also hits polarizing topics like population control, reducing visibility.

Evidence: While no direct studies on these exact groups exist, 2023 reports (e.g., The Conversation) note X’s algorithms amplify polarized content within communities but limit reach for niche or controversial posts. X posts from Konstantinos’ followers (e.g., on housing referendums) show low engagement beyond small circles.”

 

[15] ABS, Population movement in Australia (2021 Census). Date: November 8, 2022. 30% of Australians changed address between 2016-2021, disrupting community ties. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/population-movement-australia/2021[](https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/population-movement-australia)

 

 [16] Sydney Sprawl. Commuters in Western Sydney often travel 40-50km to the CBD, a widely reported norm in transport reports, supported by ABS Regional Population data (2023) noting Sydney’s growth in outer LGAs like Blacktown. See Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2023). Regional Population, 2022-23. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/regional-population/2022-23

 

 [17] Reported average Melbourne commute at 66 minutes one-way, up 10% from 2019, due to urban sprawl and post-COVID patterns. Citation: Roy Morgan Research. (2023). Australian Commuting Trends. Cited in The Age, August 15, 2023. https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/commute-times-soar-as-melburnians-return-to-office-20230815-p5dwk9.html

 

 [18] Divorce rate 2.2 per 1,000 people, with 40% of children in split homes by age 16 (derived from family composition data). Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2023, November). Marriages and Divorces, Australia. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/marriages-and-divorces-australia/2023

 

 [19] Rent Hikes (15% Since 2022) and Home Ownership (66%). ABS, Housing Occupancy and Costs, 2023-24, and CoreLogic housing reports.  ABS data released September 2024; CoreLogic updates monthly (used for 2023-24 trends).               30% of Australians changed address between 2016-2021, disrupting community ties.  ABS, Population movement in Australia (2021 Census), November 8, 2022. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/population-movement-australia/2021[](https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/population-movement-australia)