Labor and the Coalition need the Indian diaspora vote, but the immigration debate has many feeling bruised

“Indian Australian” describes an Australian voter with Indian heritage, while “Indian diaspora” broadly refers to people of Indian origin living outside India. The article uses the terms for a community that includes migrants who settled in Australia and their families. Many still have close connections overseas.

Kusum Mirchandani has lived in Australia for 21 years but remains concerned about family in India. Satish Devarakonda also prioritises travelling to India to visit his parents. Their experiences show that the community is not defined only by birthplace, but also by family ties, migration policy and belonging.

The community matters electorally because Indian-born residents have become Australia’s largest migrant group. Redbridge polling gives Labor a marginal lead among Indian Australian voters in Victoria, widening sharply against One Nation. Their views on education, healthcare, living costs and immigration could influence contests in electorates with significant Indian populations.

The article does not provide a headcount for Australia’s Indian-born population. It does state that Indian-born residents overtook British-born residents last year, making them the country’s largest migrant group. That change gives the community greater political visibility during a heated immigration debate.

Polling director Kos Samaras says Labor leads the Liberals by about 53 to 56 percent on a two-party-preferred basis among Victorians of Indian ancestry. He adds that Labor performs better in electorates with significant Indian voter numbers. The community therefore matters most where its concentration can affect the balance between parties.

Samaras says Indian Australians provide a base that can help Labor protect its safest seats. Labor’s advantage is even larger against One Nation, reaching 70-30 among Indian Australian voters. The figures do not guarantee outcomes, but they show why parties are paying closer attention to these voters.

Labor and the Coalition need to appeal to Indian Australian voters because the community has become Australia’s largest migrant group by birthplace. Its electoral importance is especially strong in Victorian electorates with significant Indian populations. Parties must therefore address both migration policy and the everyday issues that shape voting decisions.

The article shows how political signals can change loyalties. Pollster Kos Samaras says some Indian Australians describe themselves as socially conservative and aspirational, traits often associated with Liberal voting. Yet controversial comments about migration by Jacinta Nampijinpa Price made some feel that Coalition figures did not welcome people like them.

Labor has a marginal lead over the Liberals among Indian Australian voters and a larger lead against One Nation. But voters such as Kusum Mirchandani and Satish Devarakonda also focus on education, healthcare, costs and the economy. Major parties must connect immigration arguments with these practical concerns.

Net overseas migration, or NOM, measures the difference between people who move to Australia and people who leave over a period. It is a net figure, not simply the number of arrivals. A positive result means migration adds to the population after departures are counted. The article does not state a specific intake target or definition.

Labor, the Coalition and One Nation have all unveiled plans to cut Australia’s net overseas migration intake. The issue has become central to the political agenda, alongside nationwide March for Australia rallies and the rise of One Nation. Indian-born residents becoming the largest migrant group has made the debate especially significant for Indian Australians.

The article does not explain each party’s detailed reasoning. In broader public debate, proposed cuts are often linked to pressure on housing, infrastructure and services, but those reasons are not detailed here. What is clear is that immigration policy may affect voter support, particularly among families concerned about bringing relatives to Australia.

Stricter immigration policies aimed at family members of skilled migrants could limit or delay family reunification. For Indian Australians, that may affect parents and other relatives who remain in India. The issue is personal because migration often links an Australian household with family living overseas.

Kusum Mirchandani says One Nation’s hardline policy would make things harder for Indian Australians because many have family back home, especially ageing parents. She has lived in Australia for 21 years, but still considers those family relationships important. Satish Devarakonda likewise says visiting his parents in India is a priority.

The article does not specify exactly which visa rules would change or how many people would be affected. It does show a possible political consequence: family migration policy can shape party choices. Mirchandani is undecided about the 2028 federal election but has ruled out One Nation because of its position on skilled migrants’ family members.

A two-party-preferred result reduces a contest to two final options, here Labor and the Liberal party. The reported 53 to 56 percent means Labor would hold that share after votes for other candidates are distributed according to voters’ later preferences. The Liberals would receive the remaining share, roughly 44 to 47 percent.

For example, a voter might first support a minor party but mark Labor as a later choice. If that minor party cannot win, the voter’s preference can count toward Labor in the two-party comparison. The poll therefore captures how the contest could look after preferences, rather than simply asking which party is named first.

The figures come from multiple Redbridge surveys among Victorians of Indian ancestry. They show a marginal Labor lead over the Liberals, not a guaranteed election result. The article also reports a much larger 70-30 Labor advantage against One Nation, showing that the opposing party changes the comparison.

Australia’s preferential voting system asks voters to rank candidates rather than choose only one. A first-choice vote is counted initially. If no candidate has more than half the votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and those ballots move to the next available preference marked by each voter.

This process repeats until one candidate reaches a majority. A voter’s later choice can therefore help decide the winner, even when their first-choice candidate is eliminated. That is the mechanism behind a two-party-preferred figure: it estimates the final contest after preferences have flowed between the leading parties.

In the article, Redbridge reports Labor on 53 to 56 percent against the Liberals among Indian Australian voters. The figure is a polling estimate, not the result of an election count. Preferences matter because Indian Australian voters may support different parties first, while their later choices can still influence which major party finishes ahead.