Immigration minister Tony Burke has finally admitted the quiet part out loud: migration has to be matched to housing supply.

Burke told Sky News: 'We need to keep doing what we can to increase housing supply, and we need to make sure migration is tailored to what we can do there.'

That should have been the starting point of immigration policy in this country a long time ago. 

But will it actually now happen? While Burke made a rhetorical concession - little-noticed, until now - he supplied no policy meat on the bones of how he'll do it.

For years, Australians who have been worried about the size and speed of migration were told that they were being unreasonable or backward looking. Xenophobic even.

The official script was always the same: migration is good for the economy and it fills skills shortages. That's true, but only up to a point.

For far too long now high immigration has been used as the political class's favourite economic fudge. 

They can't improve productivity, so they simply add more workers into the mix. If the headline GDP numbers aren't good enough, more migrants can help with that.

University funding isn't keeping up with targets for more Australians to become tertiary educated? 

That's fine, use some full fee paying foreign students seeking a pathway to citizenship as a funding fudge instead. 

Also, when there are skills shortages (not enough doctors, nurses or tradies), again targeted migration helps with that.

Rather than confronting the hard structural problems in the economy, government after government has used record setting migration numbers in recent times as a cover-up, hoping that nobody would notice that living standards are going backwards as a consequence.

But people have now noticed, as rents rise faster than wages and getting a foothold in the housing market becomes nigh impossible. Voters are also getting frustrated with increased congestion and stretched services, with promised (and costly) new infrastructure only arriving well after the population has already risen sharply.

The great deception embedded in how governments talk about migration is that the headline GDP figures look better and better because of it, but GDP per capita, housing affordability, and the lived experience of all of us tells a vastly different story.

Australians aren't opposed to all immigration. This isn't a zero sum debate. It's immigration at levels the country plainly can't absorb that is the problem. 

And voters who feel that way are sick and tired of being labelled xenophobic for raising their concerns.

Which is also why the major parties are losing control of this debate, and support for One Nation is surging.

Labor claims that net overseas migration has fallen sharply from its post Covid peak. While technically true, telling voters that the intake number is lower than what was an extraordinary one off spike in the wake of the pandemic (538,000 in 2022/23) isn't the same as getting migration numbers down to sustainable levels.

It's the same weak benchmarking Labor uses to pat itself on the back for 'reducing spending' in the budget. In fact, government spending keeps rising, including as a percentage of GDP. It just hasn't returned to the record percentage of GDP it surged to briefly during the pandemic, when JobKeeper and other handouts were in effect.

Covid-era comparisons are clearly ridiculous, whether we are talking about spending or immigration.

Net overseas migration was still more than 300,000 last financial year. In the decade before the last, it averaged just over 200,000. So 306,000 is still high by historical standards, especially in the middle of a housing crisis.

Burke's sudden interest in matching migration to housing comes only after the polls forced his hand. Labor wasn't listening to growing resentment until they got politically scared.

Angus Taylor had already announced a sensible enough policy to link migration levels to housing supply, well before Burke's comments. Yet he is getting almost no credit for that. 

Instead, the political dividend goes straight to One Nation. Pauline Hanson doesn't even need details, she just needs to say the system is out of control and the major parties ignored the problem for too long.

Some of the rise in One Nation's vote is a howl of frustration by voters who feel the country is changing faster than governments can manage, and faster than they ever consented to. 

Branding concerns about migration as bigoted just pushes more people towards a party (and leader) willing to say what the major parties were too afraid to admit before now.

When in government both major parties clung to high immigration rates to fudge their economic figures in a bid to project economic competence. But it was just a mirage. Managed well, migration is one of Australia's great strengths. 

Managed badly, however, and it becomes a pressure point that eventually exposes every failure governments don't want to confront

The public isn't asking for Australia to close itself off from the world. It just wants a rate of immigration that's sustainable. Is that really too much to ask?