Australia has 3 competing migration policies. The problem? None are based in evidence

Over the past month, Australia's three main political parties—Labor, the Coalition, and One Nation—have introduced competing migration policies. Despite their differences, all three policies focus heavily on net overseas migration (NOM). NOM is essentially an accounting figure that represents the difference between the number of people migrating to Australia and those leaving.

Instead of basing their policies on evidence and modeling the appropriate level of migration based on Australia's economic and social needs, each party treats NOM as a target to aim for.

One Nation's policy has been the most fluid, but it settled on a "net-negative" NOM for three years before reaching 130,000 migrants annually. There is no justification for this target in terms of modelling its impact on the labour force, housing, and infrastructure. Instead, the party relies on empty political rhetoric blaming migration for every economic and social problem in Australia. The policy also includes specific changes to temporary visas, including heavy restrictions on international students.

The Coalition's policy aims to reduce NOM to 100,000 in its first two years, then increase it to 130,000 in year three and 160,000 in year four. However, like One Nation, the Coalition's target is not based on any modelling of its impacts on the problems the policy seeks to address. The Coalition also proposes maintaining the migration rate as a share of the population below the average under the Howard government.

This overlooks the fact that, during the Howard government's term, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) used three different definitions for NOM calculation. If the 1996-2005 definitions were still in place today, NOM would be considerably lower than it is.

Labor has been advocating for the Treasury's forecast of 235,000 NOM per year, which is based on basic research conducted during the Morrison Coalition government. The figure has remained unchanged for six years, despite significant changes in the management of temporary migration. It's ironic that Labor is now defending a forecast originally made by the Coalition.

While all three parties share the same permanent intake policy of 185,000 per year, they disagree on the number of humanitarian migrants. One Nation appears to have no permanent migration program mentioned in its policy. The Coalition has not clarified how a continuing permanent migration program of 185,000 per year aligns with its lower and changing levels of NOM.

This discrepancy could be a bigger issue for One Nation if its policy on permanent migration is revealed. It's crucial for One Nation to address permanent migration policy.

One positive development is that both the Coalition and One Nation have proposed changes to the management of temporary visas. All three parties agree that undergraduate students should not bring family members with them. Labor has already implemented this change. Both One Nation and the Coalition propose eliminating the graduate visa, except for a small number of elite students.

This shift could be beneficial, as the skills migrants possess are more closely related to labor demand than the courses they study. Temporary skilled visa holders also come from a broader range of countries compared to students. However, One Nation's proposal to not allow temporary skilled visa holders to bring their families is problematic, as these individuals are part of the international labor market and may not be willing to come to Australia without their families.