Australia has 3 competing migration policies. The problem? None are based in evidence

Over the past month, the Labor government, the Coalition and One Nation have all announced new migration policies.

Although they differ in some respects they have one feature in common: a focus on net overseas migration (NOM).

If the parties were pursuing evidence-based plans, they would model what level of migration is in the national interest based on Australia’s economic and social needs.

Instead, NOM, which is essentially an accounting outcome, is treated as a basis for policy.

But are there any good ideas within these policies, and is one approach superior? Let’s compare them.

One Nation One Nation’s policy has been very fluid .

But the party has settled on NOM being “net-negative” for three years before rising to 130,000.

How much net-negative is unstated.

These targets for NOM are not justified by any modelling of their impact on the labour force, housing and infrastructure.

Instead, there is a lot of empty political rhetoric that, in the words of former Tasmanian premier Peter Gutwein, blames migration for “every economic and social problem confronting Australians”.

One Nation has announced specific changes to numbers on the various temporary visas, including heavily restricting international students.

The Coalition The new Coalition policy states NOM would fall to 100,000 in its first two years in government before rising to 130,000 in year three and 160,000 in year four.

Like One Nation, the Coalition’s NOM targets are not justified by any modelling of their impacts on the problems they aim to solve.

And like One Nation, the proposals are accompanied by a lot of empty rhetoric.