Liberal leader Angus Taylor promises the biggest immigration cut in Australian history as Pauline Hanson claims he’s stealing her policy
Angus Taylor says a Coalition government would sharply reduce Australia’s migration intake, describing the proposal as the biggest immigration cut in the country’s history. The announcement comes as the Coalition loses support to Pauline Hanson’s anti-immigration One Nation, which says the Liberals are copying its policies.
Net overseas migration would fall from nearly 300,000 people a year to about 100,000 in the first year, then settle at 160,000 annually after four years. The plan would halve the humanitarian intake from 20,000 to 10,000, abolish temporary graduate visas and reduce student and working holiday visas, while adding 15,000 skilled visas for major projects and a new agriculture visa from 2030. The Coalition estimates its measures would reduce temporary visa holders by around 650,000 over four years and add about $260 million to the budget, but says full costings will come closer to the 2028 election.
- Taylor proposes cutting net migration to 100,000 in the first year.
- The annual intake would later settle at 160,000.
- Pauline Hanson accuses the Liberals of copying One Nation.
New here? Start with this
Immigration has become one of Australia's most contested political issues, with how many migrants to accept and what visas to offer shaping election campaigns and voter decisions. The government's immigration policies affect housing availability, job markets and population growth rates, making these decisions important to many Australians in their daily lives. These debates now rank among the issues most likely to determine how people vote.
One Nation, a party led by Pauline Hanson, built its political platform largely on opposing high immigration levels and criticising current visa programmes. The party appeals to voters worried about rapid population growth and its effects on employment, housing and community change. In recent years One Nation has attracted growing support from voters concerned about immigration, making it an influential force in Australian politics.
The Coalition, one of Australia's two major political groupings that can form government, has traditionally taken a more moderate stance on immigration than One Nation. However, as One Nation has gained voter support, the Coalition has begun proposing tougher immigration policies to compete for those voters' support. This shift shows how immigration has become central to electoral competition, particularly with the next Australian election approaching.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters argue that Australia's rapid population growth through immigration has created genuine pressures on housing affordability, public infrastructure and services struggling to meet demand. They contend that reducing migration allows time for housing supply to catch up, wages to stabilise, and communities to integrate effectively, whilst still maintaining skilled migration for critical sectors and acknowledging humanitarian commitments.
The case against
Opponents contend that Australia faces significant labour shortages across essential sectors including healthcare, aged care and agriculture, and that reducing immigration risks economic slowdown precisely when demographic pressures from an ageing population demand growth. They argue the policy sacrifices long-term prosperity and humanitarian obligations for short-term political advantage, and that immigration has historically delivered net economic and cultural benefits.