Global Mobility Dispatches with Ray Rackham
Date: 22 October
Australia has announced further migration reforms designed to bring net overseas migration down to 245,000 in 2026–27 and 225,000 in 2027–28: through tightening temporary migration pathways and prioritising strategically important skilled workers.
On paper, a sensible balancing act. But history offers a cautionary tale. In 2010, David Cameron promised to reduce Britain’s net migration from hundreds of thousands to “tens of thousands”. It was a wonderfully simple political proposition: combine clear ambition with a memorable number, and wrap it up with a straightforward measure of success.
There was just one problem: neither the economy nor labour market always plays ball! Britain never achieved its target. But pursuing it helped shape years of immigration restrictions, political argument and uncertainty. In 2018, a parliamentary committee concluded that the target had undermined public confidence and needed to be replaced with an evidence-based framework.
Sixteen years later, the numbers game is international.
Canada wants temporary residents to represent less than 5% of its population by the end of 2027, while reducing new temporary resident arrivals and protecting access to workers in priority sectors. Australia’s more targeted approach is driven by concerns about housing, infrastructure and population growth.
The Netherlands offers an interesting alternative perspective. Its Advisory Council on Migration has argued against prescribing a numerical labour migration target without first understanding which workers are needed, for what jobs and with what wider economic and social consequences.
Net migration tells us how many more people arrive than leave. It tells us remarkably little about whether a country has sufficient sectoral talent. And history has proved that simply reducing arrivals doesn’t automatically resolve pressures on housing, infrastructure or public services. If anything, targets should be informed by evidence about economic need, not become substitutes for that evidence.
And this is where Talent Mobility has an opportunity. We understand recruitment challenges, sectoral shortages, international workforce dependencies and the practical consequences of immigration restrictions.
We cannot expect to influence migration policy if we only speak when a visa route is threatened. We need to participate earlier, argue more persuasively and demonstrate that access to international talent is not simply an immigration issue, it’s an economic one.
Lobbying for simpler (or in some cases simply clearer) immigration rules remains important, but by supplying credible workforce intelligence, we might help steer the course; not just navigate it once it’s been set.
