‘We are talking billions’: Burke demands costings on Coalition deportation plan

The Coalition is proposing to remove more than 400,000 migrants currently on bridging visas from Australia. A bridging visa allows a person to remain in the country while their immigration status or application is resolved. The article does not explain how every case would be assessed or processed.

The plan would require the government to find people, check their legal status, detain some of them and arrange their departure. Tony Burke says the Coalition would need to explain how many detention beds and compliance officers it would fund. It would also need to identify locations for new detention centres.

The Coalition has not released full costings. Angus Taylor says those figures cannot be fully prepared until closer to the election. Burke argues that the proposed operation would cost billions and that the plan contains major gaps. The scale of the proposed removals makes implementation a central political and financial issue.

Removing large numbers of people requires a substantial enforcement system. Officials must locate people, assess their cases, make legal arrangements, provide transport and manage people who cannot leave immediately. Detention is especially expensive because it requires secure facilities, staff, healthcare and administration.

Burke points to three major cost drivers: detention beds, compliance officers and new detention centres. If the Coalition greatly expands detention capacity, it may need to build or operate more facilities and recruit many more staff. Those needs would come before, and alongside, the actual removals.

The article gives no final price. Burke says the figures being discussed involve “billions and billions of dollars.” Taylor says higher taxation from higher-earning skilled migrants would make the broader policy budget-neutral, but the Coalition has not released full costings. The Parliamentary Budget Office has produced analysis rather than a complete breakdown.

The proposed gap between the parties is large. The Coalition wants net overseas migration to fall to 100,000 in its first year of government, then link future limits to housing. It proposes 160,000 in the fourth year. Labor is targeting 245,000 migrants by June next year and 225,000 by mid-2028.

One Nation proposes the sharpest reduction. It wants negative migration for three years, followed by 130,000 a year. The Coalition policy would also cut about 650,000 temporary migrants from the program, while holding permanent migration at 185,000 and increasing skilled temporary workers by 100,000.

The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figure puts net overseas migration just above 305,000. That is down from a post-pandemic peak of slightly less than 556,000. The figures show every major party is proposing change, but the size and speed of the reductions differ sharply.

Net overseas migration measures the country’s population movement across its borders over a period. It is not simply the number of arrivals. Departures must also be counted, because people leaving reduce the overall total.

The calculation is straightforward: total people entering Australia minus total people leaving Australia. For example, if 500,000 people arrived and 200,000 departed, net overseas migration would be 300,000. The article defines the measure in exactly these terms, without giving the separate arrival and departure totals.

The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figure cited is just over 305,000. That figure is lower than the post-pandemic peak of slightly less than 556,000. The parties’ targets therefore concern the net total, not necessarily an identical reduction in arrivals, departures or every type of visa.

Policy costings estimate the financial effect of a government proposal. They can include direct spending, savings and changes in tax revenue. For the Coalition plan, the relevant questions include the cost of detention and removals, plus possible tax changes from altering migrant numbers and skill levels.

The Parliamentary Budget Office was commissioned to provide “analysis,” not a full breakdown. Taylor says its legislation prevents it from modelling Labor’s policies directly, so the Coalition had to provide assumptions. That legal and methodological limitation restricts what the office can calculate before an election.

The Coalition has not released full costings. Taylor says a fuller assessment can occur closer to the election, when the legislative constraint will not apply in the same way. He argues higher-earning skilled migrants would pay more tax and make the plan budget-neutral, but the article does not provide an independent final figure confirming that claim.

Migration affects both the demand for housing and the supply of workers. A rapid fall could ease some population pressure, but it could also reduce the workers, customers and taxpayers supporting the economy. The article presents this as a trade-off rather than a guaranteed outcome.

Burke warns that moving too aggressively could “smash the economy,” particularly health and construction. Those sectors may lose workers or face greater staffing pressure. Critics of One Nation’s negative-migration proposal also warn that it could send Australia into recession and harm industry. The article gives no numerical forecast of these effects.

Housing is central to the debate because migration has recently exceeded the number of homes being built. The Coalition wants a cap tied to housing, while about 173,000 houses were built last year. Future policy will therefore depend on whether migration falls gradually, how many homes are built and whether essential sectors can retain enough workers.

Migrants affect government finances through both revenue and spending. Workers generally pay income tax and other taxes, while governments provide services and infrastructure. The overall budget effect depends on migrants’ earnings, ages, visa types, employment and use of public services. The article does not quantify that balance.

The Coalition’s argument focuses on selecting higher-earning skilled migrants. Taylor says they would pay more tax, offsetting tax losses linked to temporary visa-holders. Migrants also fill jobs, which can help employers maintain output and keep services operating. Their work can support productivity when skills match areas of demand.

Taylor says the policy would raise productivity, competitiveness and the average income of incoming migrants. However, the article offers no independent estimate of those gains or of total fiscal effects. The live policy question is whether fewer migrants, but migrants with higher incomes, would produce better budget and economic outcomes than larger migration numbers.