A Liberal Senator Wants to Cut Migration. His Own Team Isn't So Sure.
Liberal senator and shadow housing minister Andrew Bragg used a National Press Club address on 12 August 2026 to stand by his proposal to cut net overseas migration to 180,000 per year, even as senior colleagues publicly distanced themselves from the figure.
Net overseas migration, or NOM, is simply the number of people who move to Australia minus the number who leave, over a year. Bragg told the Press Club that Australia's housing shortfall could be fixed if NOM was capped at 180,000 or under for four years running. He said that would bring migration to its lowest level since the mid-2000s, pointing to 2009-10 as proof it can be done — NOM fell from 300,000 to 175,000 within 18 months back then (The Guardian, 12 August 2026). The Sydney Morning Herald had flagged the speech the day before, reporting Bragg would reveal the Coalition wanted NOM under 180,000 per year on average (SMH, 11 August 2026).
The numbers matter. Australia's NOM for the year to December 2025 was 301,000 people (Parliament of Australia Hansard, 10 July 2026), and it has been above 300,000 for 14 straight quarters (Parliament of Australia Hansard, 21 July 2026). Under the Albanese government's current settings, NOM was forecast to drop to 295,000 in the last financial year, 245,000 in 2026-27, and 225,000 in 2027-28 (The Guardian, 12 August 2026). Earlier Hansard records noted NOM was forecast to decline further in 2025-26 and 2026-27, driven by fewer arrivals and more departures (Parliament of Australia Hansard, 4 February 2026).
So Bragg's 180,000 target is well below what the government is already forecasting. The gap between the two is roughly 45,000 to 65,000 people per year by the end of the budget forecast period.
Bragg said the cut could be achieved by trimming international student numbers, working holidaymakers, and some unskilled workers. He admitted the opposition had not finalised its full migration policy but said it was important to get into more detail.
His colleagues were not racing to join him. Shadow treasurer Tim Wilson declined to back the 180,000 figure, telling reporters: "I don't think you should bank that at all." Shadow education minister Julian Leeser said NOM must come down and that international education must be part of the mix, but would not commit to a number. Nationals leader Matt Canavan ruled out any visa cuts that might hit migrant workers on farms or in regional areas. One Nation said it would cap visas at 130,000 per year but gave no detail on what would be targeted (The Guardian, 12 August 2026). An ABC report confirmed one Liberal frontbencher called a sub-180,000 target "achievable" with cuts to backpackers and international students, while other colleagues poured cold water on Bragg's comments (ABC News, 12 August 2026).
Opposition leader Angus Taylor kept things deliberately loose. He said the Coalition's NOM target will be "well below 200,000" and that an exact number will come before the next election, once housing figures are known. That gives Taylor room to land anywhere between Bragg's 180,000 and the government's forecast 225,000 for 2027-28, without being pinned to a figure his own shadow treasurer has already dismissed.
Bragg's speech went beyond migration. He also proposed cutting the National Construction Code from hundreds of pages down to just 80, and flattening the tax structure for higher earners. Both are the kind of dry reform ideas that tend to spark more argument than agreement inside a coalition where the Nationals are protective of regional workforce visas.
The broader context here is a Coalition still figuring out what it wants to say about migration. Bragg has put a number on the table. Taylor has given himself a range. Wilson has said don't bank it. Canavan has drawn a line through anything touching rural workers. And Leeser has flagged that international education, a major revenue source for universities, is in the mix. The opposition is arguing migration must come down while also saying no particular way of doing that is settled. That works fine in opposition, where the goal is to keep the heat on the government rather than on your own numbers. It gets harder once an election is called and the question shifts from whether migration should be lower to whose number it will be, and which visas get cut to get there.
