The debate over whether a sharp cut in net overseas migration would harm or help Australia’s economy has intensified as the Labor party and populist One Nation present divergent views. One Nation’s leader, Pauline Hanson, proposes slashing temporary migrant numbers by more than 750,000 over three years, targeting international students and family members of skilled workers, and would require a negative net migration for three consecutive years before a cap of 130,000.
Labor, by contrast, aims for a longer‑term net migration target of 225,000, compared with the last official estimate of 292,000 for the year to March. Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke warned that Hanson’s plan would “trash Australian services and the economy,” while Hanson blamed high population growth for the country’s economic woes and cited Canada as an example where living standards improved after a migration cut.
Canada, a comparable nation, has reduced its share of temporary migrants from a peak of 7.6 % in 2024 to 5 % without setting a specific net migration target. The government has tightened entry for international students, limited extensions, and granted some permanent status to temporary migrants, bringing annual population growth down from 3.1 % to about 0.5 %.
Economic experts such as the CD Howe Institute and Royal Bank of Canada economists argue that Canada’s economy is adjusting rather than breaking. Modelling predicts modest GDP growth and falling employment, but analysts say these changes reflect demographic shifts, not a struggling economy. The Canadian labour market remains resilient, with unemployment falling even as employment growth slows.
However, economists caution that Canada’s experience may not transfer to Australia. Canada’s post‑pandemic surge was larger than Australia’s, and its migration crackdown coincided with high unemployment and a recovering economy. Australia, with a tighter labour market and higher unemployment, faces different conditions. The ageing populations in both countries also mean that a permanent low‑growth migration regime could shrink the workforce and strain public finances. While Australia may not replicate Canada’s exact policy mix, the discussion highlights the need to balance temporary migration with domestic workforce development and fiscal sustainability.
