Australia’s migration debate needs clear targets, credible delivery plans and honest discussion of the consequences – not caps that cannot work or promises that ignore visa backlogs.
The Labor government is belatedly expected to release a plan to get net migration down to the 225,000 the prime minister has promised. The Coalition continues to issue thought bubbles that may be good politics but make little policy or administrative sense. One Nation changes its policy position every week as the media gradually asks difficult questions. How should Australians make any sense of this?
It’s best to start with the questions Australians should ask each of the parties.
- What is your long-term net migration target and why is that the most sensible?
- How do you propose to deliver that target given net migration is currently running at around 300,000 and we have a stock of around 3 million temporary entrants in Australia putting unsustainable pressure on permanent migration?
- What are the consequences of delivering that target and how will the transition be managed?
Treasury has for many years now favoured a long-term net migration target of around 225,000. In essence, that target seeks to balance our capacity to manage infrastructure, housing and service delivery demands with the rate at which our population ages. Lower net migration means faster population ageing.
Until recently the government has largely ignored that target, with Tony Burke arguing “there is no magic number” and that long-term migration plans restrict the government’s flexibility (a nonsense argument). With the prime minister making it clear he wants Treasury’s 225,000 net migration forecast delivered, Burke seems to have at last understood the imperative of delivering the prime minister’s public commitment. The problem now seems to be getting agreement amongst his colleagues on how that should be delivered.
Even if Burke reaches agreement on measures to reduce net migration to 225,000, a range of extraordinary visa backlogs and pressures would remain, including:
- Over 400,000 people on bridging visas – a sure indicator of a visa system in deep trouble.
- 120,000 backlog of partner applications which is increasing by around 20,000 per annum.
- Over 130,000 people in the asylum system, which is still growing by over 1,000 per month. Over 111,000 of the 130,000 have been refused at the primary stage and have not departed.
- Over 270,000 people on temporary graduate visas, most of whom will be looking for permanent residence.
- Over 260,000 people on skilled temporary visas, most of whom will also be looking for permanent residence.
- Over 225,000 people on working holiday maker visas.
The Coalition won’t announce a net migration target, arguing it will wait to see how many houses are built and then decide on a net migration ‘cap’. That puts the cart before the horse and is simply policy and administrative nonsense – it’s not possible to ‘cap’ net migration. The Coalition has also said nothing about what it would do about the range of backlogs and other pressures. That may be because most of these started to build up from around 2015, when the Coalition was in government.
One Nation has said it will cap ‘visas’ at 130,000 per annum and its net migration target is negative 100,000 per annum. Its media adviser has told the Australian Financial Review that the 130,000 visas relate to the combination of permanent migration, skilled temporary migration and student visas. That would reduce visa grants for those three categories by around 580,000 compared with 2025-26.
But even with that extraordinary cut, it would take a number of years for net migration to fall to negative 100,000, and would most likely require a very weak labour market leading to a surge in departures.
Hanson herself has said the 130,000 relates only to permanent migration. Why she can’t reach agreement on this with her media adviser is a mystery. But her position would make it impossible for One Nation to hit its negative 100,000 net migration target, even if it could be successful in removing 75,000 overstayers as it has promised.
Perhaps to achieve its negative 100,000 net migration target, One Nation has also suggested it would deport an additional 100,000 students and another 100,000 temporary workers in Australia. The grounds for these deportations remain unclear, as does the cost of trying to do so. The suggestions are resoundingly similar to thought-bubble promises made by Donald Trump despite the extraordinary cost and legal problems Trump is experiencing. One Nation refuses to learn from Trump’s mistakes.
Somewhat similar to Trump, One Nation will retain working holiday maker visas and visas for the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) Scheme despite ongoing reports about shocking levels of exploitation and abuse of these workers, most recently by a NSW parliamentary inquiry. Providing cheap and easily exploited labour to farmers seems a clear One Nation priority.
A long-term net migration target of negative 100,000 would mean zero population growth, which would quickly become negative; much faster population ageing but without the health and aged care workforce to support the more aged population; and Australia more quickly reaching the point where deaths exceed births. Demographically, we would start to look much like Europe and North-West Asia.
This may not bother One Nation or its supporters at this time. But a bit like Brexit in the UK, it will bother them afterwards, especially when older Australians find they can’t get the health and aged care they need and the labour market goes sharply south.
Abul Rizvi PhD was a senior official in the Department of Immigration from the early 1990s to 2007 when he left as Deputy Secretary. He was awarded the Public Service Medal and the Centenary Medal for services to development and implementation of immigration policy, including the reshaping of Australia’s intake to focus on skilled migration, slow Australia’s rate of population ageing and boost Australia’s international education and tourism industries.