Australia has 3 competing migration policies. The problem? None are based in evidence

Over the past month, the Labor government, the Coalition and One Nation have all announced new migration policies. Although they differ in some respects they have one feature in common: a focus on net overseas migration (NOM). If the parties were pursuing evidence-based plans, they would model what level of migration is in the national interest based on Australia’s economic and social needs. Instead, NOM, which is essentially an accounting outcome, is treated as a basis for policy. But are there any good ideas within these policies, and is one approach superior? Let’s compare them. One Nation One Nation’s policy has been very fluid. But the party has settled on NOM being “net-negative” for three years before rising to 130,000. How much net-negative is unstated. These targets for NOM are not justified by any modelling of their impact on the labour force, housing and infrastructure. Instead, there is a lot of empty political rhetoric that, in the words of former Tasmanian premier Peter Gutwein, blames migration for “every economic and social problem confronting Australians”. One Nation has announced specific changes to numbers on the various temporary visas, including heavily restricting international students. The Coalition The new Coalition policy states NOM would fall to 100,000 in its first two years in government before rising to 130,000 in year three and 160,000 in year four. Like One Nation, the Coalition’s NOM targets are not justified by any modelling of their impacts on the problems they aim to solve. And like One Nation, the proposals are accompanied by a lot of empty rhetoric. After four years, the Coalition proposes “to maintain the migration rate as a share of the population below the average under the Howard government”. This ignores the fact that, during the term of the Howard government, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) applied three very different definitions to the calculation of NOM. If the two definitions that ABS applied to NOM from 1996 to 2005 were in place today, NOM would be considerably lower than it is. This is because vastly more temporary migrants are now counted into NOM than would be the case if the 1996–2005 definitions were used today. The Coalition’s plans to cut the numbers on graduate and bridging visas would cut around 475,000 workers from the Australian labour force, 216,000 of whom are skilled (based on applying 2021 Census employment characteristics to 2026 numbers). This at a time when an estimated two million baby-boomers have retired, and when Australia’s labour market has become increasingly dependent on workers with temporary visas, especially in sectors such as aged care, construction and horticulture. Read more: The Coalition’s migration policy rests on a series of false premises Labor Labor in government tried for a long time not to have a target number for NOM. However, led by the prime minister and the very real prospect that NOM will fall to the level of the Treasury long-run forecast before the next election, Labor has adopted the Treasury forecast as its policy position for NOM. This number, 235,000 per year, derives from basic research conducted by Treasury’s Centre for Population in 2020 during the term of the Morrison Coalition government. Treasury has stuck with this forecast for six years, even though there have been considerable changes in the management of temporary migration since 2020. It’s ironic that Labor is now defending a forecast originally made by the Coalition. The permanent program Labor and the Coalition share the same policy on the permanent intake: 185,000 per year. They differ on the number of humanitarian migrants (Labor 20,000 and Coalition 10,000). For One Nation, permanent migration appears not to exist because there is no mention of it. The Coalition does not clarify how a continuing permanent migration program of 185,000 per year harmonises with its much lower and changing levels of NOM. With even more severe cuts to NOM, this could be a bigger issue for One Nation if we knew what its policy was. It is incumbent on One Nation to address permanent migration policy. None of the three parties has proposed ending the egregious and illegal practice of capping the number of permanent visas issued to partners of Australian citizens. Managing temporary migration In a potentially more positive direction, both the Coalition and One Nation have specified changes to the management of the various temporary visas. Immigration Minister Tony Burke made some less radical changes in his recent speech to the National Press Club. All three parties agree undergraduate students should not be permitted to bring family members with them. Labor has already implemented this change. Both One Nation and the Coalition propose to eliminate the graduate visa except for a small number of elite students. Read more: The Coalition’s migration changes would slash international student enrolments Reacting to labour demand, all three parties are seeking to increase numbers on the temporary skilled visa. In the absence of the graduate visa, the temporary skilled visa would become all-important in the recruitment of permanent skilled migrants. This is a positive direction as the skills which migrants hold are much more closely related to labour demand than the courses being studied by international students. They also come from a much wider diversity of countries than students. One Nation, however, has made the very bad mistake of proposing that temporary skilled visa holders will not be allowed to bring their families. These people are part of international labour markets. They have choices. They will not come to Australia on a four-year temporary visa without their families. All three parties want to move to much smaller numbers on bridging visas. The cut proposed by the Coalition is from around the present 400,000 to 40,000. They say they can achieve this by not permitting temporary migrants (other than working holiday makers) to apply for another temporary visa onshore. This ignores the fact that 133,000 of the people presently on Bridging Visa A are applicants for permanent visas. One Nation’s target for bridging visas is 300,000, which most commentators would say is still unacceptably high. The post-2028 election numbers on bridging visas will be highly dependent on the legacy number at the time of the election. This is in Labor’s hands. All three parties wish to eliminate 80,000 so-called “unlawful non-citizens”. Big (metaphorical) sticks are proposed, but not guns. Former migration administrator, Abul Rizvi, correctly says this is very much easier said than done. Alone among the three parties, One Nation has said there will be no amnesty for this cohort. What should be done All these announcements have been made in the absence of comprehensive information on the employment of temporary residents and their impacts on housing and other aspects of infrastructure. This information will become available from the results of the 2026 census, for which there is no published release date as yet. The sensible approach to take in this situation is to not make drastic changes until proper research is conducted. This could and should be done by whatever government is elected in 2028, but this is likely to be a vain hope. Politicking about temporary migration in lieu of reliable data will inevitably be ill-informed.