Anthony Albanese delays major migration overhaul again as voters flock to Pauline Hanson’s One Nation
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has again delayed a planned overhaul of migration policy, confirming it will not feature on the agenda of Tuesday's national cabinet meeting in Perth. The move follows the last-minute cancellation of a National Press Club speech by the home affairs minister earlier in August, after cabinet failed to agree on the changes amid internal division. The delay comes as fresh polling shows immigration is the leading factor driving voters towards Pauline Hanson's One Nation, putting pressure on Labor to act even as it insists on getting the policy right rather than rushing it.
Labor has forecast an annual net overseas migration figure of 225,000, while One Nation has been mired in confusion over its own target after MP David Farley suggested the party's actual figure could exceed 230,000 when accounting for essential workers, prompting Senator Hanson to publicly reaffirm the party's 130,000 commitment. An Utting Research poll of 1,000 One Nation supporters found 91% believed the country was heading in the wrong direction, with 39% citing immigration as the main reason, ahead of cost-of-living concerns (35%), government and politicians (32%) and the economy (26%). The Coalition, meanwhile, has yet to set a firm figure, though leader Angus Taylor indicated it would be "substantially below" recent levels and likely under 200,000, linked to housing completion rates.
- Albanese delays migration policy overhaul again amid cabinet division
- Poll shows immigration is top driver of voters switching to One Nation
- Labor, One Nation and Coalition all differ sharply on migration targets
New here? Start with this
Anthony Albanese leads Australia's Labor government, which has been working on a shake-up of the country's migration system, covering how many people are allowed to move to Australia each year and under what rules. The plans have repeatedly been pushed back after ministers could not agree on the details internally, and the government says it wants to get the policy right rather than rush it out.
At the same time, immigration has become one of the most contentious issues in Australian politics, with polling showing it is now the top concern for many voters and a key reason some are switching support to Pauline Hanson's One Nation, a minor party long associated with tougher immigration stances. The opposition Coalition, led by Angus Taylor, is also weighing in with its own lower migration figures, tying the debate to pressure on housing supply.
This matters because migration levels affect housing, jobs and public services, making the issue highly sensitive politically. The delays in setting a clear government policy, combined with rising support for parties pushing stricter limits, could shape how Australia's major parties position themselves ahead of future elections.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates of a swift and substantial cut to migration argue that net overseas migration in the hundreds of thousands has outpaced housing and infrastructure delivery, pushing up rents and straining services in ways ordinary voters feel directly. They see the surge in support for One Nation, and polling showing immigration as the top concern even ahead of cost-of-living, as a legitimate democratic signal rather than something to be managed away with delay. On this view, ministers dithering over an overhaul while the numbers stay high shows a government more anxious about internal Labor disagreement than about voters' lived experience, and a bolder, faster reset would restore public trust that politicians are listening.
The case against
Those who favour a slower, more deliberate approach argue that migration policy is technically intricate, touching skilled-worker shortages, university funding, aged care and construction labour, and that rushing a headline number to placate one poll risks worse outcomes than taking time to get settings right. They would say cabinet disagreement reflects healthy scrutiny of a complex trade-off rather than dysfunction, and that reacting hastily to a populist party's polling bounce risks scapegoating migrants for problems, such as housing supply and cost-of-living pressures, that have multiple domestic causes including planning approvals and interest rates. On this view, a considered timetable, even if politically uncomfortable in the short term, better serves the economy and social cohesion than a hurried announcement designed mainly to blunt a rival's momentum.