Polling shows voters may have a different view of immigration than recent political rhetoric would suggest.
The early laps of a long 2026 election campaign have seen immigration pop up again and again. New Zealand First, seizing on the free-trade agreement with India and reprising the sort of “Asian invasion” rhetoric it debuted in the 1990s, set the ball rolling with Winston Peters’ speeches warning of “loose immigration” and “mass immigration”, “unfettered immigration” and “massive immigration”.
A few days later, Act announced its immigration policy, which includes changes to the “skilled migrant” category and a daily $6 fee for migrant workers to fund infrastructure. It prompted many, including the immigration minister, to speculate that the party was playing catch-up with New Zealand First’s anti-immigration platform. “It certainly feels like it,” said Erica Stanford, who saw streaks of “populist” and “kneejerk” policy in Act’s announcement. She judged that Seymour “hasn’t thought this through very well”, adding: “That’s a little bit typical sometimes.”
In a pre-budget speech, Christopher Luxon indicated that immigration was likely to be front and centre in the approaching campaign. “It’s an issue we’ll watch closely, and you should expect to see careful policy on immigration from National as we get closer to the election,” he said. “And my message to the business community is that when it comes to immigration, when faced with a choice between social stability and your bottom line, I will choose the former every single time.”
Peters, speaking in west Auckland last Sunday, suggested the others were marching to his beat. “Mr Luxon? He did a speech the other day as leader of the National Party talking about his concern about immigration,” he said. “Wow! Where did you get this 11th-hour experience? This road to Damascus epiphany? And Seymour – he made a similar speech.”
Speaking on Newstalk ZB last week, the prime minister had a dig back. “I think there’s a bit of anti-immigration cosplay going on where some politicians are pretending to be Trump or Farage or Le Pen,” he said, noting “remarks from Winston for example.” He added: “We don’t have uncontrolled or illegal immigration in this country.”
Why the surge in immigration talk? Politicians are evidently exercised about the issue, but are voters? How strong is the sentiment, and what is the ceiling for the anti-immigration vote? The most recent Ipsos Issues Monitor puts immigration a good way down the list, tied in 11th, with just 8% in February picking it as one of their three biggest concerns.
Immigration has barely bothered the scorers in Ipsos Issues Monitors across recent years – it’s the trajectory, however, that may be pricking the ears of political parties.
Around the world, anti-immigration rhetoric has become part of the political furniture. In two countries that we often compare ourselves with, the UK and Australia, it has been a hot-button issue in recent elections. Reform UK, led by Nigel Farage, took 26% of the overall vote – easily the largest share – in council elections earlier this month. A couple of days later in Australia, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party won its first ever lower house seat, securing 57% of the vote in a rural New South Wales byelection.
More broadly in Australia, polling has for some time now suggested one in four people back One Nation; the party consistently outpolls the Liberal-National coalition. In the UK, Reform has come first in every major poll for more than a year.
Comparable studies by Ipsos, however, show immigration does not concern New Zealanders on anything like the level seen in Australia, where three times as many nominate the issue in their top three, or the UK, where the result is fivefold New Zealand’s, and right at the top of the pile (compared with fifth in Australia and 11th in New Zealand).
Isolated in the South Pacific, New Zealand does not have the border challenges that beset many parts of the world. “There are echoes of the divisive anti-immigrant politics overseas,” said Massey University sociologist Paul Spoonley. “You see it in phrases like ‘mass migration’. But I would continue to make the point that we have a merit-based system of immigration. Overseas, debates are often dominated by asylum seeker policy and people arriving at the border without documentation. We don’t see that here.”
He added: “Clearly there’s some concern, but it’s not in the Ipsos top 10. Compared with health and other factors it really is not significant.”
The Social Cohesion in New Zealand report, published in April by the Helen Clark Foundation, found that 53% consider immigration “makes New Zealand stronger” down from 56% in 2024. Asked about the number of immigrants accepted in recent years, 36% said it was too high, 43% said about right and 6% too low. A study conducted in Australia using the same methodology measured 51% saying immigration is too high.
Spoonley said he was encouraged by the findings from research by the Asia New Zealand Foundation, which suggests 56% believe immigration from Asia has a positive impact. “I think the positive ratings about migrants have been tracking upwards for the last 20 years,” he said.
The most recent Talbot Mills poll for clients has a revealing entry on immigration, breaking down perception of the issue on party lines. Overall, 40% believe immigration to be a force for good. Among NZ First voters, that falls to just 14%. For National backers, it’s 48%.
The rhetoric itself could create something of a feedback loop, said Spoonley. “I suspect there will be a bump in concern about the issue simply because people are listening to the politicians.”
The next Ipsos Issues Monitor is expected any day now, and the Asia New Zealand Foundation’s latest report is published next month.
