Australian business leaders are pushing back against calls for sweeping cuts to the nation's migration intake, warning that reducing numbers without regard for skills needs could leave critical industries — from aged care to construction — dangerously short-staffed. As political parties sharpen their positions ahead of a federal election, prominent figures from across the business community are urging the debate to move away from headline figures and focus instead on the type of migrants Australia selects.

Where the Numbers Currently Stand

Australia's net overseas migration (NOM) is forecast to fall from roughly 300,000 to 245,000 people this financial year, according to the most recent federal budget projections. The government's permanent migration intake sits at 185,000 places, with approximately 70 per cent allocated to skilled workers and most of the remainder to their family members.

Political pressure for steeper reductions is growing. One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has called for the permanent intake to be slashed to 130,000, while the Coalition has proposed capping migration in line with housing construction — without nominating a specific figure. Labor, meanwhile, is yet to settle on a final position. For more on One Nation's migration policy and whether the numbers add up, the details reveal significant complexity beneath the headline promises.

Business Leaders Warn of Skills Shortages

Leading business groups have argued strongly against major reductions to migration, citing the risk of skills shortages and broader economic damage. Several CEOs have spoken directly to the consequences for their own sectors.

  • Leora Healthcare co-CEO Esha Oberoi noted that close to 800 employees work for the company, with more than 45 per cent on visas — underscoring how heavily the aged care sector relies on overseas workers.
  • Metricon CEO Brad Duggan pointed to the vital role migrant communities play in the residential construction industry, saying large communities have taken responsibility for certain trades and are a crucial part of the housing sector.
  • Flight Centre CEO Graham Turner acknowledged that tourism is only marginally affected by migration levels since it depends more on visitor numbers. However, he argued that immigration remains "the main way Australia grows" and suggested an annual intake of 200,000 to 300,000 — broadly aligned with Labor's current approach — is "probably reasonable." He also acknowledged that population growth cannot continue indefinitely, but said the current balance is "probably not too bad."

It is also worth noting, as analysis of Australia's migration debate highlights, that emigration figures are often overlooked when assessing net population change — a crucial piece of context frequently missing from public discussion.

A Dissenting Voice: Kogan Calls for Broader Perspective

Not everyone in the business community is aligned. Ruslan Kogan — who arrived in Melbourne as a child from communist Belarus in 1989 and went on to build several successful ecommerce companies, becoming one of Australia's wealthiest people — has pushed back against what he sees as narrow self-interest driving some business arguments.

"Immigration is a very important area of policy for the building of a nation, and so it needs to be looked at from the nation as a whole perspective, not just what the business community or certain areas of the economy might think is best for them," he said.

Kogan does not advocate for a specific intake figure, but argues that because Australia is an exceptionally desirable destination, it is in a strong position to be highly selective about the skills and qualities it seeks in migrants. He drew a parallel with how his own companies approach recruitment — prioritising quality over quantity.

What Comes Next

With Labor yet to finalise its migration policy and the opposition offering only a broad framework tied to housing construction, the debate remains fluid. Business groups are likely to continue lobbying for a skills-based approach, while political leaders face public concern about housing affordability and infrastructure pressure — issues closely linked in the public mind to population growth. The outcome of this debate will shape not just immigration settings but the broader economic trajectory of the country.