Coalition would set Net Overseas Migration under 180,000 – Bragg
- Written by: Weekend Times
Liberal housing spokesman Andrew Bragg has nominated under 180,000 as the size of Net Overseas Migration under a Coalition government.
The number is based on Opposition Leader Angus Taylor’s earlier
announced policy of using the number of homes built in the previous year as the ceiling for the NOM.
The current level of dwelling constructions is about 173,000-180,000 annually. From March 2025 to March 2026, more than 174,000 dwellings were completed.
The actual number for the NOM that the opposition will take to the 2028 election will be based on the updated construction numbers closer to the poll and consultation.
Bragg, shadow minister for the environment as well as for housing and homelessness, addressing the National Press Club, also said the Coalition would slash the National Construction Code from more than 2000 pages to “an 80 page basic Australian standard”.
Bragg said Australian Bureau of Statistics figures showed the NOM currently remaining above 300,000. The budget forecasts the NOM to decline to 225,000 from 2027-28.
He said the shortfall since Labor came to power in mid-2022 between the number of houses built and the number of people coming in was about 350,000 to 400,000 people. “And so you need to have a NOM somewhere around 180,000 on average to bridge that gap over the forward estimates period. That’s just the range”, he said.
“A NOM reduction on this scale is manageable and in line with reductions we’ve seen in the past. For example in 2019 when the budget reduced them from 300,000 to 175,000 in 18 months.”
Bragg said the reduction could be achieved by getting the requisite skill changes industry needed, by having modest reductions in international students, working holiday makers and some unskilled workers. This would be subject to consultation with industry.
“We want fewer pastry chefs and more builders, highly skilled builders, so that would be the overall direction of travel [of the Coalition]”.
He said that “lifting migration standards and analysing carefully each year is crucial to ensure integrity and public trust in the immigration settings”.
Bragg agreed the proposed Coalition Construction Code would be very basic and would not include, for example, extended energy efficiency requirements.
“Let people choose more stuff,” he said. “I love energy efficiency. I’m really passionate about electrification. I think we can do great things and help people become masters of their own domain. But why do we have to make it compulsory for everyone? It’s punitive for people on lower incomes.”
The proposed code would be very simple.
It’s a house that won’t fall down. It’s secure. It won’t burn down, but it doesn’t have anything else in it. It’s a very simple house. It’s a basic amenity. So you’ve got to have a window in a room, for example.
Bragg – one of the relatively few moderates in the parliamentary Liberal Party, and known for being outspoken – bluntly criticised the former Coalition government.
I understand that people are over the two-party system and it’s a tough ask to say to Australians – we buggered it up, but please vote for us again.
The pitch came with a personal mea culpa. “As someone who was a backbencher in the Morrison government, I wish I’d done more to stop the madness.”
The “madness” was centred on too much spending.
“Whenever a politician announces new spending, they are stealing from tomorrow because there’s no intention to ever balance the books”.
Labor’s Bob Hawke and his finance minister Peter Walsh are Bragg’s heroes when it comes to spending restraint.
“[They] managed to cut federal spending from 27.5% of GDP to 22.9% in just five years.”
Labor’s housing minister Clare O'Neil told the ABC the Bragg speech was a “crazed, almost manic ideological fever dream”.
On the construction code, O'Neil said it was too convoluted and complicated, and said the government was working on it. But she attacked Bragg’s plan to slash the code.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
