What's good for the goose is good for the gander, the coalition argues, questioning why Labor says its planned migration cuts were good while the opposition's were bad.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
The coalition will reduce Australia's permanent migration intake by a quarter, lowering it to about 140,000 in its first two years in government, before raising it to 150,000 and then 160,000 over the following two years.
Labor has criticised the policy, saying it would impact the economy and skills base.
But opposition home affairs spokesman James Paterson said Labor couldn't have it both ways as the government spruiked a halving of net migration to about 260,000 from next year.
"How could it possibly be the case that the Labour Party reducing migration is fine but the Liberal Party reducing migration by a little bit more is somehow terrible - I think that's an absurd argument," he told ABC radio on Monday.
"Clearly, neither will have a disastrous effect on the economy.
"We're still going to bring in significant people - 140,000 permanent residents under us - but we think it's much more sustainable than what Labor has been doing."
The plan would ease pressure on the housing market, health sector and congestion, Senator Paterson said.
But the plan wasn't thought through, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said.
"When you look, the detail simply isn't there, no costings, no understanding about impact on the economy," he said.
"They're a group that just appeal to their own base, say things that their own base wants to hear without putting forward clear, fully costed policies."
Australian Associated Press
