Uploaded May 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Australia is obsessed with immigration—dare I say, addicted to it. Successive governments seem to think that the only way to stave off an ageing population—and keep headline GDP growing—is to turn on the immigration tap. Unfortunately, this has resulted in too many people chasing too few homes, triggering a widespread housing crisis.
But mathematically, using immigration to “fix” ageing is a temporary patch. Migrants age too. To keep staving off the problem using only this tool, you have to continually increase the intake year after year—effectively creating a demographic pyramid scheme that must ultimately collapse.
When housing supply falls short while demand skyrockets, prices go up to ridiculous levels. Young people, as well as older renters, feel like they can’t possibly get into the housing market without some sort of miracle or major sacrifice—like moving to a regional centre.
But even regional centres have become overpriced. Mirage News reported recently: “UniSQ Report Warns Regional Housing Crisis Escalates,” while RealEstate declared: “Regional Victoria: No longer an affordable escape from city rents.” Simply put, the crisis has spread to the regions as the population has surged.
In his most recent budget, did Treasurer Jim Chalmers address the elephant in the room that is immigration? No, don’t be daft! The ABC even reported: “Labor upgrades net migration numbers by 55,000 in federal budget.”
In total, net migration is now projected to swell by nearly one million people—990,000 to be exact—over the four financial years to July 2029. That’s the only play they have left. The only way to keep this demographic Ponzi scheme afloat is to keep the immigration tap running.
Marking a sharp policy shift, Opposition Leader Angus Taylor used his budget reply speech to promise to tie immigration directly to housing completions. As the ABC’s headline read: “Angus Taylor proposes one-for-one migration cap tied to housing.”
Under this proposal, if Australia only builds 150,000 houses in a year, net migration is capped at 150,000 places. Because the average Australian household contains more than two people, this formula mathematically ensures housing supply outpaces demand.
It’s a concept championed for years by parties like One Nation, and even highlighted by ABC finance presenter Alan Kohler in the past. Specifically, Mr Taylor stated: “A Coalition government will cap immigration numbers based on the number of homes constructed each year. Never again will a government be able to bring in more people than our housing can support.”
Predictably, the critics are already howling. But let’s be entirely realistic: anybody claiming this isn’t basic common sense is trying to con you. Bringing in more people than you have the physical infrastructure to support is a surefire way to break a society.
However, a recent clip from the ABC Insiders program is making the rounds on social media. Finance presenter Alan Kohler joined the panel to push back against the Coalition’s logic, arguing:
“When I did a book on housing, I suggested that they link housing construction to immigration, but that was two years ago. The net overseas migration in that year was 536,000, and housing completions were 175,000, so there was actually a shortfall in that year.
But now, net overseas migration is down to 300,000, and completions have stayed the same, so now, on that calculation, there’s a surplus of housing. House prices have been going up because of interest rates coming down, not because of migration. In fact, if Angus Taylor tied housing to migration now, he would have to increase migration. The ratio is 2.4 per house.”
Hold on a minute. Not only has Kohler completely misinterpreted the Coalition’s actual policy framework, but the idea that Australia currently has a housing “surplus” is living completely off with the fairies.
At first, I thought he might have just misunderstood the proposed policy on live TV. But in his column for the ABC today—headlined “Albanese and Taylor both looking to history for future of Australia’s tax system”—he doubled down on his mistaken view.
He then goes on to say that if the 2027–28 forecast of 225,000 is correct, “a Coalition government in that year would have to increase migration to match housing completions, not cut it.”
No. That’s not what the Coalition is saying at all.
They’re saying if you want to have a 225,000 immigration intake, you would have to build at least 225,000 houses first. And based on history, that is not going to happen anytime soon.
Ultimately, I don’t know if this is an intentional spin by the ABC and Alan Kohler, or if it’s just a genuine misinterpretation of the Coalition’s proposal. But one thing is abundantly clear: if you want to fix the housing crisis, you either need fewer people, or a lot more houses.
The only question left is: which option is more politically palatable, and more importantly—actually achievable?
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn
Australia is obsessed with immigration—dare I say, addicted to it. Successive governments seem to think that the only way to stave off an ageing population—and keep headline GDP growing—is to turn on the immigration tap. Unfortunately, this has resulted in too many people chasing too few homes, triggering a widespread housing crisis.
But mathematically, using immigration to “fix” ageing is a temporary patch. Migrants age too. To keep staving off the problem using only this tool, you have to continually increase the intake year after year—effectively creating a demographic pyramid scheme that must ultimately collapse.
When housing supply falls short while demand skyrockets, prices go up to ridiculous levels. Young people, as well as older renters, feel like they can’t possibly get into the housing market without some sort of miracle or major sacrifice—like moving to a regional centre.
But even regional centres have become overpriced. Mirage News reported recently: “UniSQ Report Warns Regional Housing Crisis Escalates,” while RealEstate declared: “Regional Victoria: No longer an affordable escape from city rents.” Simply put, the crisis has spread to the regions as the population has surged.
In his most recent budget, did Treasurer Jim Chalmers address the elephant in the room that is immigration? No, don’t be daft! The ABC even reported: “Labor upgrades net migration numbers by 55,000 in federal budget.”
In total, net migration is now projected to swell by nearly one million people—990,000 to be exact—over the four financial years to July 2029. That’s the only play they have left. The only way to keep this demographic Ponzi scheme afloat is to keep the immigration tap running.
Marking a sharp policy shift, Opposition Leader Angus Taylor used his budget reply speech to promise to tie immigration directly to housing completions. As the ABC’s headline read: “Angus Taylor proposes one-for-one migration cap tied to housing.”
Under this proposal, if Australia only builds 150,000 houses in a year, net migration is capped at 150,000 places. Because the average Australian household contains more than two people, this formula mathematically ensures housing supply outpaces demand.
It’s a concept championed for years by parties like One Nation, and even highlighted by ABC finance presenter Alan Kohler in the past. Specifically, Mr Taylor stated: “A Coalition government will cap immigration numbers based on the number of homes constructed each year. Never again will a government be able to bring in more people than our housing can support.”
Predictably, the critics are already howling. But let’s be entirely realistic: anybody claiming this isn’t basic common sense is trying to con you. Bringing in more people than you have the physical infrastructure to support is a surefire way to break a society.
However, a recent clip from the ABC Insiders program is making the rounds on social media. Finance presenter Alan Kohler joined the panel to push back against the Coalition’s logic, arguing:
“When I did a book on housing, I suggested that they link housing construction to immigration, but that was two years ago. The net overseas migration in that year was 536,000, and housing completions were 175,000, so there was actually a shortfall in that year.
But now, net overseas migration is down to 300,000, and completions have stayed the same, so now, on that calculation, there’s a surplus of housing. House prices have been going up because of interest rates coming down, not because of migration. In fact, if Angus Taylor tied housing to migration now, he would have to increase migration. The ratio is 2.4 per house.”
Hold on a minute. Not only has Kohler completely misinterpreted the Coalition’s actual policy framework, but the idea that Australia currently has a housing “surplus” is living completely off with the fairies.
At first, I thought he might have just misunderstood the proposed policy on live TV. But in his column for the ABC today—headlined “Albanese and Taylor both looking to history for future of Australia’s tax system”—he doubled down on his mistaken view.
He then goes on to say that if the 2027–28 forecast of 225,000 is correct, “a Coalition government in that year would have to increase migration to match housing completions, not cut it.”
No. That’s not what the Coalition is saying at all.
They’re saying if you want to have a 225,000 immigration intake, you would have to build at least 225,000 houses first. And based on history, that is not going to happen anytime soon.
Ultimately, I don’t know if this is an intentional spin by the ABC and Alan Kohler, or if it’s just a genuine misinterpretation of the Coalition’s proposal. But one thing is abundantly clear: if you want to fix the housing crisis, you either need fewer people, or a lot more houses.
The only question left is: which option is more politically palatable, and more importantly—actually achievable?
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn
