Peter Dutton backflips on plans to slash net migration intake to 160,000

Dumping plans to cut the net overseas migration intake to 160,000, the Opposition Leader said the Coalition would instead unveil the key element of its pitch to voters after the election.

Peter Dutton has walked back plans to slash the net overseas migration intake to 160,000. Picture: Martin Ollman/NewsWire

Peter Dutton has dumped plans to slash the net overseas migration intake to 160,000 next financial year, pledging instead to unveil the key element of the Coalition’s pitch to voters after the next election.

“We’ll have a look at the economic settings when we come to government,” the Opposition Leader declared in a Sky News interview on Sunday, on two occasions refusing to recommit to the net overseas migration target he had previously set in May.

The target, 100,000 below Labor’s planning levels of 260,000 for 2025-26, measures the difference between the number of international arrivals staying in Australia for longer than 12 months, and the number of long-term and permanent departures.

But despite vowing “deeper cuts” to the migration intake than Labor after NOM hit a record 548,000 in the 12 months to September 2023, Mr Dutton’s decision to drop a specific target adds further uncertainty to the Coalition’s migration policy, already scant on details.

On Sunday, Mr Dutton recommitted the Coalition to its separate target to reduce the number of permanent visas from their current 185,000 to 140,000 in the next two financial years, before steadily increasing the number of places by 10,000 annually in years three and four.

However, granted around 60 per cent of people awarded permanent residency are already in Australia, the Coalition’s proposed cut to visa numbers will have only a limited impact on the overall net migrant intake.

Further complicating the Coalition’s efforts to reduce the permanent intake is that its proposed cuts to that migration program would impact skilled visa and partner visa allocations, required by law to be granted on a demand-driven basis.

Employers, who continue to report labour and skill shortages, welcomed Mr Dutton’s decision to walk away from the proposed steep migration cuts.

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive Andrew McKellar. Picture: Martin Ollman/NewsWire

“Dropping that target is recognition of the practical realities, it would have been very difficult to achieve in practice,” said Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive Andrew McKellar, encouraging the Coalition to adopt a more “flexible” approach.

“Implementing a target of 160,000 would have cut right across the skills requirements of industry and would have risked an even greater disruption to the international education sector,” he said.

Migration expert and former Immigration Department deputy secretary Abul Rizvi said the Coalition’s now abandoned target of 160,000 would have been “absolutely impossible” unless the jobless rate surged to over 6 per cent, up from 4.1 per cent on its most recent measure.

“To get there you’d need a combination of a really weak labour market, plus he’d need to upset a large number of his business constituents in agriculture and tourism – I doubt he’s prepared to do that,” Dr Rizvi said.

However, Dr Rizvi said the lack of detail in the Coalition’s migration policy wouldn’t necessarily damage its standing with voters.

“As long as (Peter Dutton) can create the right impression he gets the right outcome,” he said.

“The vast majority of Australians have no idea what net overseas migration is and if it appears like the Coalition will cut (migration) harder than Labor, Dutton gets the outcome he wants.”

Mr Dutton’s backflip comes after the Coalition opposed Labor’s legislation imposing international student caps on universities – a fundamental element of the Albanese government’s plan to trim migration – despite previously vowing to introduce limits on foreign enrolments.

In the absence of the caps, Labor will instead rely on revamping a controversial ministerial direction that prioritises visa applications from students with offers to study at “low-risk” providers. That direction, however, has been criticised for favouring sandstone universities over regional and outer-suburban institutions.