Migration has become a major political talking point – how do parties’ policies compare?

The next federal election could be up to two years away, but both major parties – and their biggest threat, One Nation – have already released their immigration policies.

How do they stack up against each other?

How are the major parties proposing to reduce immigration?

Labor has promised to introduce rules to achieve net overseas migration (Nom) of 245,000 this financial year and 225,000 in 2027-28.

In September, the home affairs minister, Tony Burke, announced ministers would be able to prioritise visa applicants with in-demand skills, including in healthcare, construction, education and law enforcement.

Other less critical visa applications are being slowed down to reduce the intake.

Wait times for working holidaymaker visa applications will be stretched to three months to reduce the number entering the country. A ballot system for years two and three with regional work requirements will be introduced.

So-called visa hopping by international students will also be restricted, Burke said, as would visas for family members of students.

The Nom is the overall gain or loss of population through long-term arrivals and departures. It differs from permanent migration, which tracks the annual number of long-term visas offered to skilled workers and family members.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics confirmed in September that Nom had eased to 292,000 in the year to March, from 299,000 in December.

The Nom – a figure notoriously difficult to predict and, until recently, mostly monitored by policy experts and economists – is now being used as a talking point by Labor, the Coalition and One Nation.

This week, the opposition leader, Angus Taylor, announced that the Coalition would more than halve Labor’s Nom forecast, reducing the figure to 100,000 for the first two years from 2028-29.

Taylor rightly noted it was the biggest cut to immigration in Australian history. The Nom target would rise to 130,000 in the third year and 160,000 in 2031-32.

To achieve the drastic reduction, the Coalition would slash bridging and protection visas from more than 400,000 to just 20,000 in four years. Temporary graduate visas, which allow international students to remain in the country for a few months after graduating to find work, will also be cut to 10,000.

What are One Nation and the Greens’ migration policies?

Despite professing to be leading the policy debate on migration, One Nation’s plan lacks detail.

In September, a nine-page document outlined a plan to reduce the number of temporary visa holders by 750,000 if elected to government

Over the three-year period, the minor party said it would impose an annual student visa cap of 115,000, reducing the student visa population to 350,000. It was about 590,000 in 2025-26.

Graduate visas for international students finding work after completing their studies would be capped at 20,000 a year, reducing the visa population to 40,000 over three years. Bridging visas would have a three-year target of 300,000.

After those three years, One Nation said it would set a Nom “ceiling” of 130,000 a year.

The Greens are not supportive of naming a Nom target, saying the “hyper focus” on the figure was the wrong way to deal with immigration levels.

“We are not going to start picking figures out of the air that fall apart at the slightest scrutiny,” the leader, David Shoebridge, said.

“The proof in this is watching how One Nation, the Coalition and Labor have all been chopping and changing their number over the past 18 months as soon as serious scrutiny is applied.”

What do experts say about reducing immigration quickly?

Former senior immigration official Abul Rizvi said before considering the potential consequences of sharply cutting the Nom, it’s worth asking whether any of the parties could actually achieve their target Noms.

Labor has a chance, he said: “If [Labor] maintain that high refusal rate [of visas] together with the changes they’ve announced, they will probably hit the 225 [thousand] target.”

But the Coalition’s proposal appeared near impossible in the current settings, he said. The former bureaucrat claimed the drastic cuts to bridging and temporary graduate visas were unachievable.

The bulk of bridging visas are held by prospective students, partners of Australian citizens, the elderly parents of residents or citizens, and asylum seekers.

“Are you really going to go into an Australian citizen’s home and grab their partner and say, ‘Your bridging visa has been cancelled? Leave the country’. You’re not going to do that,” Rizvi said.

“Firstly, the law won’t let you do that, and secondly, not a good look.”

Rizvi calculated the Coalition could cut Nom to about 200,000, rather than 100,000.

He doubts One Nation could achieve a negative Nom, even by rejecting skilled visa applicants from bringing their partners.

“[One Nation] couldn’t get the negative [Nom] without completely smashing the international education industry, which, on their own figures, they say they don’t intend to do.”

In the event any political party was able to achieve its pledged Nom figure, there would be workforce shortages in the aged care system, he said.

Both Rizvi and Anna Boucher, a University of Sydney immigration expert said the strength of the labour market makes reducing the Nom difficult.

Boucher said the UK and Canada, which have reduced migration numbers in recent years, are now facing serious labour shortages and economic trade-offs in other areas.

Boucher said removing Australian bridging visas could lead to lower migration figures on paper only and an increase in the number of undocumented migrants.

“We have some undocumented overstayers, but it is nothing of the scale of other countries.”