Coalition wants to bring migration down to lowest level since Global Financial Crisis

Coalition leaders are pushing for a dramatic reduction in net overseas migration, aiming to bring it down to its lowest level since the Global Financial Crisis. On August 12, 2026, Opposition Housing Spokesperson Senator Andrew Bragg announced that the Coalition intends to reduce annual net overseas migration (NOM) to under 180,000 people, significantly lower than current levels and even further than Labor’s projected targets. This move is framed as essential to align migration rates with housing construction capacity, ensuring that the influx of new residents does not outpace available housing stock. Bragg emphasized that the goal is to create a sustainable balance between population growth and infrastructure development, arguing that the current migration levels are unsustainable and contribute to rising housing costs and shortages. The proposed reduction marks a sharp departure from recent trends. As of early 2026, NOM had remained above 300,000 annually, driven by a combination of factors including the post-pandemic rebound in international student enrollments, working holidaymaker arrivals, and refugee resettlement programs. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the current rate continues to exceed 300,000, while Treasury projections suggest a gradual decline to 225,000 by the end of the decade. However, the Coalition argues that these projections are insufficient and that a more aggressive approach is necessary to address the growing housing crisis. Bragg’s target of 180,000 represents a drop of approximately 45,000 from Labor’s short-term forecast and 120,000 from the previous year’s intake. To achieve this ambitious goal, Bragg outlined a strategy focused on reducing non-skilled migration pathways. He suggested that the Coalition would implement modest cuts to visas for international students, working holidaymakers, and post-study work visas, while simultaneously increasing the proportion of skilled migrants aligned with labor market demands. These adjustments aim to prioritize individuals whose skills directly benefit the economy, particularly in sectors facing workforce shortages, such as construction and engineering. Bragg argued that this shift would allow Australia to maintain its attractiveness as a destination for talent while ensuring that migration does not strain existing resources. The Coalition’s stance reflects broader political tensions surrounding migration policy. Support for the One Nation party has surged in recent months, prompting both major parties to refine their positions. While One Nation advocates for a cap of 130,000 visas, which could result in near-zero or negative net migration, the Coalition seeks to strike a middle ground by maintaining a robust migration program while managing its impact on housing. Meanwhile, Labor has faced internal divisions over its own migration policies. Last week, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke was scheduled to present a comprehensive plan to reduce NOM from 300,000 to 225,000 within two years, but the proposal was reportedly delayed due to concerns over its feasibility and potential backlash. Cabinet officials expressed reservations about the abrupt nature of the proposed measures, suggesting that a more nuanced approach might be required to avoid unintended consequences. The debate over migration levels has also intensified due to the role of external migration categories that are beyond government control. Free trade agreements with countries such as New Zealand and the United Kingdom have established visa arrangements that limit the ability of policymakers to significantly alter the flow of backpackers and other temporary migrants. These agreements stipulate that certain quotas cannot be reduced, creating a challenge for governments seeking to manage migration more tightly. In response, Bragg acknowledged that while some aspects of migration are fixed, the Coalition believes that targeted reforms in other areas, such as working holidaymakers and international students, can yield meaningful results without violating international obligations. One of the key arguments supporting the Coalition’s position is historical precedent. Bragg cited the 2009–10 period, when NOM fell from 300,000 to 175,000 in just 18 months. That decline occurred in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis, as Australians returning from abroad contributed to the downward trend, alongside government interventions to protect domestic employment. Bragg asserted that similar strategies could be applied today, emphasizing that the Coalition is prepared to implement rapid and decisive action to stabilize migration levels. He stressed that the proposed reductions would not involve outright bans or blanket restrictions but rather a recalibration of priorities to better match the nation’s needs. In addition to migration reform, Bragg’s speech included proposals aimed at streamlining the construction sector. He pledged to overhaul the National Construction Code, reducing it from over 2,000 pages to an 80-page “Basic Australian Standard.” The new code would focus on fundamental safety and structural requirements, with additional features such as energy efficiency or accessibility enhancements left to individual choice. Bragg defended the proposal as a means of lowering construction costs and accelerating housing production, arguing that overly complex regulations hinder affordability and slow down development. Critics, including Labor’s Housing Minister Clare O’Neil, dismissed the plan as impractical and ideologically driven, accusing Bragg of promoting a “crazed, almost manic ideological fever dream.” Despite these criticisms, the Coalition remains committed to advancing its agenda, framing its proposals as necessary steps toward fiscal responsibility and long-term national stability.