The Coalition responded to the government’s 2026/27 Federal Budget migration settings, adding to debate on how immigration should be managed amid ongoing population pressures.
Although the Opposition’s proposals reflect political positioning rather than formal policy, these debates—and the broader public conversation on immigration—offer early signals of potential shifts to workforce planning and access to skilled talent.
Interstaff outlines key points made by the Coalition in its budget reply, along with concerns expressed by economic commentators and business groups.
Coalition’s budget reply on immigration settings
Cut migration to align with housing supply
Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor argued in his budget reply that, if elected, “a Coalition government will cap immigration numbers based on the number of homes constructed each year.”
His proposal directly links Net Overseas Migration to housing supply, arguing that current housing shortages stem from construction failing to keep pace with population growth.
The National Housing Supply and Affordability Council (NHSAC) predicts a housing supply shortfall of around 40,000 is likely to continue in coming years:
900,000 in demand
Net forecast demand for dwellings from July 2024 to 2029
(after demolitions).
862,000 in homes
Net forecast supply of dwellings from July 2024 to 2029
(after demolitions).
However, ABC News has challenged whether linking migration policy to housing will indeed produce “one of the biggest cuts to immigration in Australian history,” as promised by Taylor.
It reported that 174,792 dwellings were completed in 2024/25—almost exactly matching the housing demand generated by population growth that year (174,708).
419,300
Australia’s total population growth 2024/25
Comprised of 112,600 natural increase and
304,700 Net Overseas Migration
(including 185,000 permanent migration planning level)
174,708
Places to live required for total population growth
(using average occupancy of 2.4 occupants per household)
174,792
Dwellings completed in 2024/25
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics and ABC News.
ABC News Finance reporter, Alan Kohler argued that if Treasury’s 2025/26 NOM forecast of 295,000 is realised and housing completions are maintained, the result would be a slightly larger housing surplus than the previous year. Matching migration solely to dwelling completions could, therefore, increase migration levels rather than reduce it.
Doing so also risks oversimplifying the complexities of migration policy and several economic and demographic factors that complicate the equation:
- Construction fluctuations: In the second half of 2025, dwelling starts increased to around 17,000 a month or slightly more than 200,000 a year.
- Natural increase: Australia’s birth rate is declining. Demographic experts may recommend a certain level of migration is essential.
- Infrastructure: Impacts to other infrastructure such as transport, energy, and technology need to be assessed.
- Budget: The Treasury’s ‘Fiscal Impact of New Australians’ shows most migrants are a net positive for the budget. Having fewer migrants will increase the deficit.
Restrict welfare access
The Coalition’s budget reply also proposed to remove welfare access to new permanent residents, making citizenship the threshold for welfare.
Currently, permanent residents are recognised for paying taxes while living and working in Australia and, in most cases, are restricted to welfare benefits via a waiting period.
| Welfare benefit | Waiting period* |
|---|---|
| JobSeeker, Youth Allowance, Austudy, Parenting payment, Seniors Card | 4 years |
| Family Tax Benefit – Part A | 1 year |
| Age Pension | 10 years |
| National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) | No wait |
*Limited exemptions apply. Not all welfare benefits available to permanent residents are listed.
Source: The Conversation.
If elected, this proposal would change that. New permanent residents would contribute without welfare access until they become eligible to apply for citizenship—a process that requires four years as a permanent resident, followed by an application process that can take more than a year.
Some migrants may face additional barriers because their home countries do not allow dual citizenship. Giving up their original citizenship can affect their ability to visit family or retain property and investments.
The Coalition also advocated for strengthened citizenship rules aimed at limiting privileges to migrants who “live Australian values,” though Australia already has a citizenship test in place.
Possible workforce impacts
While the political debate focuses heavily on housing and welfare, business groups such as the Business Council of Australia have emphasised a different reality: Australia’s chronic labour shortages and the need for skilled migration.
Permanent residence is a major drawcard for attracting and retaining global talent. Reduced incentives could make Australia less competitive to other global work destinations, such as Canada, the UK, and the US.
Tying migration caps explicitly to economic factors such as housing supply could also create instability in labour markets, such as aged care and essential services, that depend on migration to meet acute skills shortages.
Sustainable people strategy: Global talent
For employers, the message is clear: migration as a policy area is becoming more politically sensitive and increasingly tied to housing constraints.
Historically, governments have used migration as an economic tool, recognising that migrants enter the workforce, pay taxes, and contribute to economic growth. These contributions may be overlooked or misrepresented when migration is politically framed as a housing pressure.
Businesses should monitor this shift closely for implications in how Australia attracts, retains, and supports global talent.
Interstaff assists employers requiring sustainable global talent strategy to strengthen workforce capabilities.
Access our immigration insights to explore:
- Work rights and visa conditions
- Skilled visa changes
- Temporary and permanent visa pathways
