Coalition MPs concede immigration pledge not fully costed by independent watchdog

By the Editorial Team · Thursday, October 8, 2026

Coalition MPs have admitted that their new immigration policy to reduce net overseas migration has not been fully costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office, despite claims of budget neutrality. This raises concerns about the policy’s transparency and economic impact as critics from business, opposition parties, and sectors like agriculture warn of potential negative consequences.

Coalition MPs have acknowledged that their recently announced immigration policy has not been fully costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO), despite party leaders maintaining the plan is budget neutral. The policy, unveiled on Tuesday, proposes reducing net overseas migration (NOM) to 100,000 per year for the next two years, before increasing to 130,000 in the third year and 160,000 in the fourth.

Deputy Liberal Leader Jane Hume and Energy Minister Angus Taylor have insisted the Coalition collaborated closely with the independent budget watchdog in developing the plan. Taylor asserted that the policy had undergone internal economic modelling and that the PBO had fully assessed its budgetary impact. However, the PBO declined to comment on the costings or the policy itself, citing confidentiality protocols, and has not publicly confirmed a comprehensive cost analysis.

“We are confident that this package is budget neutral,” Taylor said when announcing the policy. He further stated the Coalition had followed the same procedures as the current government in budgeting its initiatives and critiqued the opposition Labor Party for not releasing similar modelling. A Coalition policy document claimed the party had worked with the PBO to evaluate the fiscal effects, suggesting the measure would yield a small positive return.

The plan has drawn criticism from business groups, the university sector, and government figures. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, through CEO Andrew McKellar, highlighted concerns that the proposal addresses the wrong issue, pointing to a housing supply shortage rather than immigration as the cause of economic pressures. McKellar contended that focusing on a specific net overseas migration figure was misguided.

Labor and One Nation have also advocated for reductions in international arrivals, tapping into public concerns over housing affordability and strained essential services. Acting Prime Minister Richard Marles criticized the Coalition’s proposal, warning it would negatively affect critical sectors such as agriculture, aged care, and defence. Speaking from Perth, Marles said the Coalition appeared to be “chasing One Nation rather than developing policy in the national interest,” stressing the need to manage immigration numbers carefully to maintain economic stability and support strategic industries in Western Australia.

Taylor’s office indicated plans to deliver a full cost analysis before the next federal election. Meanwhile, questions remain about the transparency and completeness of the Coalition’s economic assessments amid broader debates on the appropriate scale and management of Australia’s immigration intake.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.