Australia’s major political parties have outlined markedly different approaches to migration ahead of the next federal election, which could be held within the next two years. The governing Labor Party, the opposition Coalition, and minor parties including One Nation and the Greens have each released policies aiming to recalibrate the country’s net overseas migration (Nom), but their targets and strategies diverge significantly.

Labor plans to set Nom at 245,000 for the current financial year, reducing it to 225,000 by 2027-28. Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke recently announced measures to prioritise visa applications for individuals with critical skills in sectors such as healthcare, construction, education, and law enforcement. At the same time, other visa categories deemed less urgent are being slowed to reduce immigration volumes. For example, wait times for working holidaymaker visas will extend to three months to curb numbers, and a ballot system requiring regional work for second and third-year applicants will be introduced. Restrictions will also be placed on “visa hopping” by international students and the eligibility of family members to join them.

Nom represents the net population gained or lost through long-term arrivals and departures and is distinct from permanent migration, which counts the annual issuance of long-term visas to skilled workers and family members. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that Nom had eased slightly to 292,000 in the year to March, down from 299,000 six months earlier. Although historically a complex and often technical metric tracked mainly by policy experts, Nom has become a central element of public debate and political positioning on migration.

The opposition Coalition has proposed a far more aggressive reduction. Leader Angus Taylor announced plans to halve Labor’s Nom projections, targeting 100,000 migrants annually for the first two years starting in 2028-29. This would mark the largest immigration cut in Australia’s history. The Coalition’s plan envisions raising the Nom target gradually, to 130,000 in the third year and 160,000 by 2031-32. To meet these targets, the government would need to reduce bridging and protection visas from over 400,000 currently to just 20,000 within four years, and cut temporary graduate visas to 10,000 annually. Taylor said current bridging visa holders would be grandfathered, so they would not be forced to leave or apply for new visas.

One Nation has announced intentions to drastically scale back temporary visas but has provided fewer concrete policy details. Its September policy document proposes reducing the temporary visa population by 750,000 over three years. This includes capping student visas at 115,000 annually, down from around 590,000 currently, and limiting graduate visas to 20,000 per year. The party also targets reducing bridging visas to 300,000 over three years. Following that period, One Nation would impose a Nom “ceiling” of 130,000 annually.

The Greens, by contrast, reject the focus on setting explicit Nom targets. They argue that concentrating on a single migration figure oversimplifies the issue and diverts attention from broader considerations such as environmental sustainability, social cohesion, and economic impacts.

With these varied policy prescriptions, migration and its management remain a pivotal and contentious issue in the lead-up to Australia’s next federal election.