Migration Has Become a Major Political Battleground in Australia

Key Points

• Labor, the Coalition and One Nation have all proposed significant reductions in Australia’s net overseas migration (NOM), although their targets and timelines differ substantially.
• Labor is targeting NOM of 245,000 in the current financial year and 225,000 in 2027-28, alongside tighter controls on student, family and working holiday visas.
• Opposition Leader Angus Taylor has proposed reducing NOM to 100,000 for each of the first two years from 2028-29, followed by targets of 130,000 and 160,000.
• The Coalition proposal includes sharply reducing bridging and protection visas and limiting temporary graduate visas to 10,000.
• One Nation has proposed reducing the temporary visa population by 750,000 over three years, including an annual student visa cap of 115,000.
• One Nation ultimately wants a NOM ceiling of 130,000 a year, while the Greens reject the use of a fixed NOM target.
• Former senior immigration official Abul Rizvi has questioned whether the Coalition and One Nation targets can be achieved under existing laws and visa arrangements.
• Immigration expert Anna Boucher has warned that rapidly reducing migration could create labour shortages and economic trade-offs, pointing to developments in the UK and Canada.
• The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that NOM had fallen to 292,000 in the year to March, compared with 299,000 in December.
• Experts say the political debate is increasingly focused on NOM, even though the figure is affected by complex patterns of arrivals, departures and visa movements.

Australian News Today (ANT) October 7, 2026 – Executive Summary: Immigration has become a central political issue ahead of Australia’s next federal election, with Labor, the Coalition and One Nation all proposing substantial reductions in net overseas migration. Their approaches range from tighter visa processing and restrictions on student and family migration to much more aggressive reductions in temporary visa numbers. However, immigration experts have questioned whether some of the proposed targets can be delivered within the stated timeframes and warned that rapid reductions could affect industries dependent on migrant workers. The debate has also raised questions about the distinction between headline NOM figures and the underlying visa categories that produce changes in Australia’s population.

Australia (Evening Washington) October 7, 2026 – Immigration policy is emerging as one of the major political dividing lines ahead of the next federal election, with Labor, the Coalition and One Nation each promising to reduce net overseas migration despite taking substantially different approaches to how that reduction should be achieved.

The debate has intensified as the parties have moved from broad arguments about immigration levels to specific numerical targets. Labor has committed to reducing NOM to 245,000 in the current financial year and 225,000 in 2027-28, while the Coalition has proposed a much lower figure of 100,000 for each of the first two years from 2028-29.

One Nation has also outlined an ambitious programme to reduce the number of temporary visa holders by 750,000 over three years and eventually establish a NOM ceiling of 130,000 a year.

The figures have attracted scrutiny from immigration experts, who argue that NOM is affected by several different forms of migration and population movement. They have questioned whether the most aggressive proposals can be implemented without major changes to existing visa arrangements, legal obligations and Australia’s labour market.

How is Labor proposing to reduce net overseas migration?

Labor’s immigration policy is centred on achieving specific NOM levels while changing the way different visa applications are prioritised.

According to the source material, Labor has promised to introduce rules designed to deliver NOM of 245,000 during the current financial year, followed by 225,000 in 2027-28.

Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke announced in September that ministers would have greater scope to prioritise visa applicants with skills considered to be in demand. Those areas include healthcare, construction, education and law enforcement.

The approach means that the government would not necessarily reduce migration uniformly across all categories. Instead, visa processing would increasingly favour applicants whose skills are considered strategically important.

Less critical applications would be slowed, while some categories would face additional restrictions.

Working holidaymaker applications are among those affected. Waiting periods are expected to be extended to as long as three months, while a ballot system for second- and third-year working holiday visas, alongside regional work requirements, is due to be introduced.

The government has also said it intends to restrict so-called visa hopping by international students.

Burke has indicated that restrictions will also apply to visas for family members of students, potentially reducing the number of people entering Australia through the international education system.

The strategy therefore combines a numerical migration objective with changes to the composition and timing of migration.

What does Australia’s latest migration data show?

The debate over future immigration levels comes as official figures indicate that NOM has already begun to ease.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics confirmed in September that NOM had fallen to 292,000 in the year to March, compared with 299,000 in December.

NOM measures the overall gain or loss in Australia’s population resulting from long-term arrivals and departures. It is different from permanent migration, which relates to long-term visas offered to categories such as skilled workers and family migrants.

That distinction has become increasingly important as political parties use NOM as a measure of the country’s immigration level.

The figure was traditionally followed more closely by economists and policy specialists than by the broader political debate. It has now become a prominent issue for Labor, the Coalition and One Nation.

Because NOM incorporates arrivals and departures across different visa and residency categories, changing the number is not simply a matter of setting a permanent migration quota.

This complexity is one reason immigration experts have questioned whether the targets announced by political parties can be reached within their proposed timeframes.

How far does the Coalition want to reduce migration?

The Coalition has proposed a significantly lower NOM target than Labor.

Opposition Leader Angus Taylor announced this week that the Coalition would seek to reduce NOM to 100,000 for each of the first two years beginning in 2028-29.

Taylor described the proposal as the largest cut to immigration in Australian history.

Under the Coalition’s proposed trajectory, the NOM target would then rise to 130,000 in the third year and 160,000 in 2031-32.

The proposal would involve major reductions in several temporary visa categories.

The Coalition plans to reduce bridging and protection visas from more than 400,000 to 20,000 over four years.

It would also reduce temporary graduate visas to 10,000.

Temporary graduate visas allow international students to remain in Australia for a period after completing their studies while they seek employment.

The scale of the proposed reductions has become one of the central points of contention in the immigration debate.

Former senior immigration official Abul Rizvi has questioned whether the Coalition’s target can be achieved through the proposed measures under current settings.

Why have experts questioned the Coalition’s migration target?

Rizvi said the first question should be whether political parties can actually achieve the NOM numbers they have announced before assessing the consequences of those reductions.

He considers Labor’s target more achievable.

Rizvi said that if Labor maintained what he described as a high visa refusal rate while implementing its announced changes, the government would probably reach its target of 225,000.

He has been more sceptical about the Coalition’s proposal.

According to the source material, Rizvi argued that the proposed cuts to bridging and temporary graduate visas appeared difficult to implement under existing circumstances.

A significant proportion of bridging visas are held by prospective students, partners of Australian citizens, elderly parents of residents or citizens, and asylum seekers.

Rizvi questioned whether the government could simply cancel those visas and require affected people to leave Australia.

He also pointed to the legal and political difficulties associated with such action.

On his calculations, Rizvi believes the Coalition could potentially reduce NOM to approximately 200,000 rather than the proposed 100,000.

That assessment does not necessarily dispute the Coalition’s objective, but highlights the difference between announcing a numerical target and having the administrative and legal mechanisms needed to deliver it.

What is One Nation proposing on immigration?

One Nation has adopted another highly restrictive approach but, according to the source material, has provided less detailed policy documentation than the major parties.

In September, the party published a nine-page document outlining plans to reduce the temporary visa population by 750,000 if it were elected to government.

The proposal includes an annual cap of 115,000 student visas.

The party says this would reduce Australia’s student visa population to 350,000 over the relevant period, compared with about 590,000 in 2025-26.

One Nation also proposes a cap of 20,000 graduate visas a year.

It says this would reduce the graduate visa population to 40,000 over three years.

The party has also set a three-year target of 300,000 for bridging visas.

After those initial three years, One Nation says it would introduce a NOM ceiling of 130,000 a year.

The proposal would therefore represent a substantial change to Australia’s current migration settings, particularly in relation to international education and temporary migration.

What is the Greens’ position on net overseas migration?

The Greens have taken a different position by rejecting the idea of setting a specific NOM target.

Greens leader David Shoebridge said the party did not support what he described as a “hyper focus” on the figure.

He argued that fixed numbers could become unreliable when subjected to detailed scrutiny.

Shoebridge pointed to changes in the migration numbers proposed by Labor, the Coalition and One Nation over the preceding 18 months.

The Greens’ position therefore differs fundamentally from the three parties that are making numerical reductions central to their migration strategies.

Rather than choosing a specific NOM figure, the Greens argue that the broader immigration system should be assessed without relying on what they consider arbitrary numerical targets.

Could the proposed migration cuts create labour shortages?

The potential effect on Australia’s workforce is one of the principal issues raised by immigration experts.

Rizvi said that if any political party were able to achieve its promised NOM figure, Australia could experience workforce shortages, particularly in aged care.

His warning reflects the fact that migration is connected to labour supply as well as population growth.

Anna Boucher, an immigration expert at the University of Sydney, also highlighted the strength of Australia’s labour market as a factor that could make rapid reductions in NOM difficult.

Boucher pointed to the experience of the United Kingdom and Canada, where migration numbers have been reduced in recent years.

According to the source material, she said both countries are now facing serious labour shortages and economic trade-offs in other areas.

Her comments do not suggest that Australia’s circumstances are identical to those countries, but they demonstrate the potential consequences of reducing migration while employers continue to require workers.

The issue is particularly relevant to sectors where migrant workers form part of the available labour supply.

Could changes to bridging visas increase undocumented migration?

Another issue raised by Boucher concerns the effect of substantially reducing bridging visas.

She argued that removing bridging visas could lower Australia’s migration numbers on paper without necessarily removing all of the people affected from the country.

Instead, she warned that it could contribute to an increase in undocumented migrants.

Australia currently has undocumented overstayers, although Boucher noted that their number is not on the scale seen in some other countries.

This distinction is important because a lower official NOM figure would not automatically demonstrate that every person affected by visa restrictions had left Australia.

The treatment of people whose existing visa status changes could therefore influence both the accuracy of migration statistics and the practical consequences of immigration policy.

Why is net overseas migration becoming such a major political issue?

The growing focus on NOM reflects a wider political debate about population growth, housing, public services, employment and the size of Australia’s temporary migrant population.

The current figures have given political parties a numerical measure around which they can build competing policy arguments.

Labor’s approach is based on a comparatively moderate reduction combined with targeted visa restrictions.

The Coalition is proposing a much sharper reduction, particularly through changes to bridging, protection and graduate visas.

One Nation is seeking a substantial reduction in temporary visa numbers, particularly in the international education sector, before introducing a longer-term NOM ceiling.

The Greens reject the centrality of a fixed NOM number altogether.

The differences mean that the election debate is unlikely to focus solely on whether migration should be reduced. It is also likely to concern which categories should be reduced, how quickly changes should occur and what effect those changes would have on Australia’s workforce and economy.

What are the main differences between Labor, the Coalition and One Nation?

The parties’ policies differ in both their numerical targets and the mechanisms proposed to reach them.

Labor’s target is 245,000 for the current financial year and 225,000 in 2027-28. Its measures include prioritising workers with skills in areas such as healthcare, construction, education and law enforcement, while slowing less critical applications.

The Coalition proposes NOM of 100,000 for the first two years from 2028-29, rising to 130,000 and then 160,000. Its programme includes major cuts to bridging and protection visas and temporary graduate visas.

One Nation wants to reduce temporary visa holders by 750,000 over three years. Its proposals include an annual student visa cap of 115,000, a graduate visa cap of 20,000 and a three-year bridging visa target of 300,000. It would subsequently impose a NOM ceiling of 130,000.

The Greens do not endorse a fixed NOM target and instead argue that the focus on a single number does not adequately address Australia’s immigration challenges.

What is the background to Australia’s current migration debate?

Australia’s NOM figure is not the same as the permanent migration programme. NOM measures changes in population associated with long-term arrivals and departures, meaning it incorporates a wider range of movements.

That distinction has become increasingly important as political parties use NOM targets in their election policies.

The latest available ABS figure cited in the source material shows NOM at 292,000 in the year to March, down from 299,000 in December.

At the same time, governments and opposition parties are attempting to influence the future composition of migration by changing visa processing, student migration, graduate visas, family-related migration and temporary visa arrangements.

The political debate has therefore moved beyond the traditional question of how many permanent migrants Australia should accept.

It now encompasses the broader temporary migration system and the mechanisms through which people enter, remain in and eventually leave Australia.

How could the proposed migration policies affect Australian workers and employers?

The immediate effect would depend on which policy is ultimately adopted and how successfully its measures could be implemented.

A substantial reduction in migration could reduce the supply of workers available to Australian employers, particularly in industries that rely on international workers.

Aged care has already been identified by Rizvi as an area where workforce shortages could become a concern if migration were reduced sharply.

At the same time, lower migration could change the rate of population growth and the demand associated with a larger population. The political debate therefore involves competing effects rather than a single measurable outcome.

The experience of countries such as the UK and Canada has been cited by Boucher as evidence that migration reductions can be accompanied by labour shortages and wider economic trade-offs.

However, the extent of any impact in Australia would depend on the scale, timing and composition of future migration changes.

What could happen to Australia’s migration policy next?

The competing proposals are likely to keep migration at the centre of political debate as the next federal election approaches.

The key question will be whether the numerical targets proposed by the parties can be translated into practical policy.

Labor has already announced measures aimed at reducing migration while prioritising workers in sectors considered important to the economy.

The Coalition has put forward a substantially lower target but faces questions about whether its proposed reductions in bridging, protection and graduate visas could legally and administratively deliver the promised result.

One Nation’s proposals would involve significant changes to international education and temporary migration, while the Greens continue to oppose fixed NOM targets.

The expert assessments cited in the source material suggest that the eventual outcome will depend not simply on political promises but on visa rules, legal constraints, labour demand and the behaviour of migrants already in Australia.

What is the prediction for Australian employers, workers and international students?

For Australian employers, particularly those operating in sectors that depend on migrant labour, a sustained reduction in NOM could increase competition for workers if the proposed targets are implemented at scale.

International students could face tighter limits, longer processing periods and more restricted pathways to remain in Australia after graduation under several of the proposals.

Workers in sectors such as aged care could also be affected if migration reductions contribute to labour shortages, as warned by Rizvi.

For policymakers, the principal challenge will be balancing lower migration levels against workforce requirements and the legal realities of Australia’s existing visa system.

The evidence presented by the immigration experts indicates that achieving very low NOM targets may be more complicated than announcing them. The eventual impact will depend on which policies are implemented, how quickly they are introduced and whether Australia’s labour market can adjust to a smaller flow of overseas workers.