The debate over Australia’s immigration levels has shifted focus, with growing calls to emphasize the quality and economic contribution of migrants rather than simply their numbers. Former Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock highlighted immigration as a foundational factor in the country’s growth, prosperity, and national identity, stressing the importance of a carefully managed system.
Amid mounting public concern over housing affordability, strained healthcare services, and wages not keeping pace with living costs, One Nation has positioned itself as a prominent voice advocating for major reductions in immigration. Senator Pauline Hanson, framing her proposal as a means to “take back control” of who arrives and in what numbers, criticized the existing bipartisan approach as sacrificing living standards to vested interests favoring mass migration. Her plan includes reducing temporary migrants to levels seen in 2017, scaling back the international student population to 2015 figures, and implementing a three-month deadline for those overstaying visas to leave Australia. Those who do not comply would face removal and a permanent ban on re-entry, while those departing voluntarily could reapply for visas in the future.
While enforcement of visa conditions has been generally supported, experts caution that the economic assumptions underpinning high immigration targets warrant scrutiny. The education sector, for example, was estimated to contribute $53 billion to the economy in 2024-25, ranking behind iron ore, coal, and natural gas. However, analysis from Institute of Public Affairs chief economist Adam Creighton suggests this figure may be less than half of that, highlighting the unusually large proportion of foreign students and former students working in Australia compared to other Western nations. This has prompted calls for reforms to prevent international education from becoming an automatic pathway to permanent residency.
Despite One Nation’s focus on immigration reduction, the party has been less forthcoming on how these measures would specifically resolve issues like housing affordability, ambulance ramping, or rental market pressures. South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas argued against tightening immigration, citing an ageing population, labor shortages, and the role of foreign students in funding research and knowledge industries as reasons to maintain or grow current migration levels.
Business groups have echoed concerns that sharp cuts to skilled migration could harm the economy, noting ongoing demand for workers in sectors such as construction, agriculture, and various trades critical to addressing housing supply deficits and supporting primary industries.
The immigration debate has been criticized for its polarized nature, with political indecision allowing more extreme proposals to gain traction. The broader challenge for Australia’s political leaders is crafting an immigration framework that balances economic growth, community well-being, and social cohesion—managing migration with “care and purpose,” as Ruddock put it, to benefit the nation as a whole.