Taylor’s ‘historic’ migration cut could amount to just 5 per cent

The latest salvo in Australia’s ongoing immigration debate comes courtesy of Angus Taylor, whose promise to cap net overseas migration at housing completions has been widely panned for its recklessness and shortsightedness. At first glance, the policy appears to be a bold step towards reining in what some see as an uncontrolled influx of migrants. However, upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that this is little more than a ham-fisted attempt to appease One Nation voters at the expense of economic reality.

Taylor’s signature policy would see net overseas migration cut by a meager 5% under Labor’s projected fall in migration and boost to housing supply. This reduction pales in comparison to the Coalition’s own projections from three years ago, which billed this as a 70% cut to the peak of over 555,000 arrivals during the pandemic. By any metric, Taylor’s policy has been whittled down to nothing more than a public relations exercise.

The policy would see an average of just 12,000 migrants per year above the number of homes completed – roughly half the current rate of arrivals. This not only ignores the economic benefits that migration brings but also risks creating a mismatch between supply and demand in the housing market. Industry leaders are sounding the alarm, with Master Builders Australia acting chief executive Melissa Byrne emphasizing the need for skilled migration in addressing workforce shortages.

Abul Rizvi, former deputy secretary at the Department of Immigration, has warned that cutting net overseas migration too far and too fast could tank the local housing market. He is right – letting in one migrant for each home built would quickly generate an oversupply of homes, given the occupancy ratio is roughly 2.5 people per home. This may sound like a short-term boon to those struggling to find affordable housing, but it’s a ticking time bomb waiting to unleash a wave of falling property values and potentially even more stringent regulations.

The opposition’s stance on migrants is equally disturbing. Taylor has billed his policy as limiting “net overseas migration at housing completions,” but it seems more like an exercise in semantics than genuine concern for the welfare of would-be arrivals. Andrew Bragg, opposition housing spokesman, has tried to deflect criticism by saying the Coalition will consider the average number of people per home – a far cry from the simplistic ‘one-to-one’ ratio touted by Taylor’s office.

It is time to call out this policy for what it is: a cynical attempt to score cheap points with One Nation voters at the expense of sound economic policy. If Taylor truly believes in his own vision, he should be prepared to put some real meat on the bones – rather than simply paying lip service to “careful consultation” and “targeted visa classes.” The Australian people deserve better than a policy that is little more than a warmed-over rehash of outdated and misguided ideas.