The Liberal Party has missed an opportunity to design a sophisticated migration policy that incorporates demand for labour, housing, infrastructure and energy.
There are growing tensions in the Australian migration system. The Albanese government has chosen to sweep these under the carpet. And, while they presented an opportunity for the Liberal Party to formulate migration policy that differentiated it from the government, so far, its dismal migration policy is aimed simply at inducing One Nation followers back to the Liberal Party.
The Liberal policy approach effectively labels migrants as undesirable people. Opposition Leader Angus Taylor has announced the party proposes capping overseas migration to match housing supply levels. He has also indicated that access to some welfare, including the NDIS, would be restricted to Australian citizens, and there would be a heavier emphasis on “Australian values”.
Under the announced Liberal policy, migration levels would be based solely on one new dwelling, one “net” migrant. Helping to meet skill shortages appears no longer to be a criterion for migration, even though it has been the central to it for decades.
As I have written previously, net overseas migration, which is the net loss or gain in a population due to migration, is a very slippery concept and should not be a basis for policy. For example, between 2012 and 2015, net overseas migration of Australian and New Zealand citizens alone fell by 50,000. Did this fluctuation, which is beyond the control of government, imply that 50,000 fewer dwellings were required?
Many commentators, including members of the Liberal Party, have been correctly critical of the Liberal Party’s negative approach. What is required is fundamental reform of Australian migration policy that deals with the growing tensions in the system.
On 31 March 2026, there were an unprecedented 432,000 persons in Australia on bridging visas. This represents an increase of around 250,000 in just three years. These people are awaiting a decision on an application for another type of visa. This includes rapidly growing numbers of partners and children of Australian citizens who are entitled by law to permanent residence but who are being forced to wait for years for a visa outcome. It also includes applicants for employer-sponsored permanent residence. This category has had very positive labour market outcomes in the past.
Others on bridging visas are using legal mechanisms to prolong their time in Australia, and this has reduced the number of departures. It is low numbers of departures, rather than excessive levels of arrivals, that is currently contributing to a high level of net overseas migration.
Solutions to the bridging visa issue need to be implemented as soon as possible because applicants who are partners of Australian citizens are being held in a limbo of injustice. Furthermore, the increasing delays associated with applications from highly desirable, employer-sponsored skilled workers risk the loss of these workers to the economy. Finally, the issue of legal loopholes to prolong stays must be addressed – it is spiralling out of control.
The central problem with Australian migration policy is that the level of migration is considered to be an input to planning rather than an output. In other words, Treasury budgets and intergenerational reports assume a future level of migration and then analyse what is required in planning terms. As my colleague Alan Gamlen and I have argued, levels of migration should be an outcome determined through a sophisticated planning process that incorporates demand for labour, housing, infrastructure and energy.
A significant effect of lack of planning has been the continued growth of the temporary population. We now have a temporary resident population numbering about 1.7 million or 6.2 per cent of the population; that temporary population is continuing to grow.
We have estimated that around half a million people on temporary visas are working in skilled jobs. Temporary migration has added vastly more skilled workers to the labour force since 2021 than permanent migration. This is partly a result of decisions on the granting of onshore applications for permanent skilled migration being held up.
Beyond skilled migration, temporary migrants have become vital to the workforces of several sectors, including aged care, horticulture and hospitality. Australia has long held to a principle of permanent migration rather than the guest worker situation that applies in many other countries. However, a substantial guest worker population is now an integral component of the Australian economy.
Migration policy requires managing this temporariness rather than allowing it to continue to grow in an unplanned way. A managed approach would consider where it is appropriate to meet labour demand with temporary migrants and also help to ensure temporary migrants are not exploited. It would also better govern the transition onshore from temporary to permanent residence.
Canada has recently bitten this bullet by specifying 5 per cent of the population at any time will be temporary residents. It has also specified that the annual permanent migration program should be set at 1 per cent of the total population, a level much higher on a population basis than is the case in Australia. At 1 per cent of population, Australia’s permanent program would be around 70,000 a year higher than it is now.
While Canada has shown the way, it has tried to implement the temporary population target too rapidly, leading to population decline and decimation of international education. Australia should move in the same direction as Canada but base its estimates on careful longer-term planning.
The research process needs to start now for implementation in the future. Liberal Party policy could display leadership in this process but, as yet, has failed to do so.
Republished from The Conversation
Peter McDonald
Emeritus Professor Peter McDonald The Migration Hub, The Australian National University.