Curtin splits in two
Of the 233 people placed in a group, 84% see migration working. 16% want fewer people, arriving more slowly.
See the groupsEven where they disagree, they agree on something
On the topics that divide them most, both groups back seasonal visas, infrastructure that keeps pace, and respect for Australian laws and values.
See where they agreeTop priority: a 10-year plan
65 of 73 voters backed a ten-year migration plan reported to Parliament. Five of the top six priorities echo ideas most people in both groups supported.
See the prioritiesCurtin splits into two groups
What sets them apart most
A temporary visa should not lead to permanent residency.
For me, trust comes down to the numbers: too many people have arrived too quickly for our communities to keep up.
We need net negative migration to ease housing and raise wages. Big business is funding mass migration and selling out Aussies
What sets them apart most
Migration keeps my workplace and my community going. Cutting it back would cost us more than it would save.
Australians should not forget we are all migrants except for First Nations people as so deal with newer migrants humanely
Someone who has lived, worked and paid tax here for years, and whose kids grew up here, deserves a real path to stay.
Group 1 is likely smaller here than in Curtin as a whole, because the people who join a conversation like this aren’t a random sample. 33 people voted on too few statements to be placed in a group.
Where everyone sits
Each dot is one person. People who voted alike sit close together.
Hover over or tap a dot to see how that person voted.
Even where they disagree, they agree on something
They split on the big question, yet agree on something specific. This is uncommon ground: agreement between people who usually disagree.
Unlikely allies on housing and living costs
Beneath the main divide sits a quieter alliance: people in both groups who see migration through the squeeze on housing and living costs. They still disagree about how many people should come. But they agree that struggling with the cost of living makes people less welcoming. These are unlikely allies: people who usually disagree, joined by a concern most others don’t share.
Affordability allies
What they agree on
People would be more welcoming of migrants if they weren’t struggling with the cost of living themselves.
This takes people’s cost-of-living pressures seriously, without making migrants the problem.
Universities that bring people here should have to make sure they have decent housing, not leave it to the rental market.
This asks an institution that brings people in to carry the housing cost, rather than add to the pressure on renters.
Why only 52?
Allies are people who backed both statements. Some people only got to vote on one of them, so the real alliance is probably bigger, perhaps around 80.
The six changes people want most
On 14 October, 73 people used quadratic voting to spread a budget of credits across 13 possible changes, for or against. Each extra vote on the same idea costs more, so the totals show what people care about most.
Five of the top six echo ideas that most people in both groups backed in the conversation.
And one clear no
Prioritise migrants in high-paying jobs, using salary rather than shortage lists to decide who qualifies.
44 people opposed it and 13 backed it. Most of the opposition was mild, with one or two votes each.
See the other six changes
How this worked
- 36
Starter statements
Kate Chaney’s team and RadicalxChange wrote the first statements to open the conversation.
- 266
People took part
From 8 to 27 October they voted agree, disagree or pass, online or at a workshop on 14 October, and added 501 statements of their own.
- 2
Groups emerged
Polis, an open-source tool, grouped people who voted alike. Nobody chose a group. We named them.
- 73
Voters set priorities
On 14 October they spread a budget of credits across 13 possible changes, using quadratic voting.
Notes for checking the numbers
Reading the percentages
Each figure is the share of a group who agreed, out of those in the group who voted on that statement. Later statements had fewer voters, so where fewer than 20 people in a group voted, we show how many.
Reading the map
We rebuilt the map from the published votes using the same method as Polis, so it is close to the Polis report but not identical. Left to right is the main divide. Up and down is how often people agreed overall. The 32 paler dots are people near the border who voted partly like the other group, mostly people who voted on fewer statements.
Pairing the statements
RadicalxChange chose which statements to pair. Every number comes straight from the results. People who took part online and at the 14 October workshop gave very similar results.
Affordability allies
We looked for statements with similar support in both groups, then checked whether the same people backed them. For statements 33 and 29 they did: people who backed one had about ten times the odds of backing the other, even allowing for people who agree with most things. The link is clear in Group 2; Group 1 shows the same pattern, but it rests on 23 people. Of the others who backed one of the two, about half also voted on the other and didn’t back it. The other 38 didn’t get to vote on it. Had they voted like those who did, about 29 more would be allies, about 80 in all, but they may not have, and nearly all 38 are in Group 2. Treat this as a possible alliance, not a proven one.
The priority vote
A separate vote with its own voters. We set aside ballots that used fewer than 10 credits and kept the fuller ballot where someone voted twice, leaving 73 voters. Net votes are votes for minus votes against. The matching statements from the conversation are close in meaning, not identical in wording.
The data
From the Polis export of 30 October 2026, after voting closed on 27 October. Statements appear exactly as people wrote them.