With Angus Taylor’s hardline immigration policy unveiled on Tuesday, voters have a new measure of Pauline Hanson’s success in dragging politics further to the right.
Taylor’s plan will cut ۶۰,۰۰۰ more people from net overseas migration (Nom) than the reductions proposed by Peter Dutton just before the ۲۰۲۵ election. Dutton wanted to take Nom down to about ۱۶۰,۰۰۰ people a year, while Taylor’s plan goes far further, beyond even Hanson’s bottom line of ۱۳۰,۰۰۰ people.
In the nearly ۱۸ months since the poll, Hanson’s surge in support has coincided with intense focus on the Nom, previously a fairly unremarkable budget forecast which came and went each year.
Based on sometimes scant economic analysis, the three parties – which current polling shows have a chance of forming government after the next election – have all introduced plans to cut Nom, targeting overseas arrivals increasingly seen by voters as clogging up essential infrastructure, taking houses or rorting the rules.
Taylor proudly called his plan “the largest cut to immigration in Australian history”.
It would reduce the number of temporary visa holders by about ۶۵۰,۰۰۰ people over four years. From the ۱۰۰,۰۰۰ level in the first and second years of a Coalition government, Nom would grow to ۱۳۰,۰۰۰ arrivals in year three and ۱۶۰,۰۰۰ in year four.
Taylor has met the demands of Nationals MPs and left plenty of space for the working holidaymakers needed to pick fruit and work in rural and regional hospitality. He used the announcement to take a swipe at the country’s university sector, claiming one of Australia’s biggest exports sells visa pathways, not higher education.
Humanitarian visa places would be slashed to ۱۰,۰۰۰ under the Coalition, a ۵۰% cut from Labor’s cap of ۲۰,۰۰۰ people per year.
But serious questions remain. Immigration expert Alan Gamlen, of Australian National University, says achieving cuts of this scale would be difficult for an incoming government and would certainly result in economic losers.
It is unclear how skilled visas, currently a demand driven aspect of the immigration scheme, could be increased by about ۱۰۰,۰۰۰ people in select industries, as Taylor proposes. Labor believes the only way to increase uncapped visa numbers would be to allow migrants to arrive without a job offer.
Eliminating bridging visas might be much more difficult – and expensive – than Taylor imagines. Migrants seeking permanent residency, skilled work or family rights often await processing on bridging visas. How would this caseload be managed?
Taylor’s plan fell flat with business and asylum seeker advocates.
Speaking for big business, a traditional Coalition constituency, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry boss, Andrew McKellar, said chasing arbitrary Nom targets was misguided and would hurt the economy.
“Business rejects the false binary that Australia must choose either fewer migrants with higher skills or more migrants with lower skills,” he said.
Responding to news the Coalition plan would halve Australia’s already grudging humanitarian intake, the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre’s Jana Favero said Taylor was out of touch with everyday Australians.
“Instead of focusing on the real problems – how to help people pay their rent, manage their mortgage or put food on the table – the Coalition is joining the far right’s blame game,” she said.
The politics of immigration remains all upside for Hanson, who has Taylor and the prime inister, Anthony Albanese, on the back foot. On Tuesday, she said the major parties had to be dragged kicking and screaming to their cuts, and claimed they couldn’t be trusted to deliver anyway.
Whoever voters decide they best trust on immigration, the centre has dramatically shifted in One Nation’s favour. Where it stays could change the country.
