I (Julie Williams) attended the MIA (‘Migration Institute of Australia’) Regional Conference on the Gold Coast, and the discussions reinforced just how complex and varied Australia’s regional migration landscape has become.
One question kept surfacing throughout the day: what do we really mean by “regional”? Is it reasonable that places as diverse as the Gold Coast and Bourke sit under the same classification and are managed within largely uniform policy settings? The differences in labour demand, housing pressure, infrastructure, and settlement capacity are stark, yet our migration framework often treats them as comparable.
Across every state and territory, a common frustration was expressed around reduced nomination allocations this program year, compounded by the fact that allocations were not confirmed until November rather than July. This delay significantly restricted planning and led to compressed processing windows. South Australia, in particular, highlighted how challenging this has been, with a 41% reduction in allocations and a sharply lower ceiling for subclass 190 nominations (approximately 1,550 places).
Unsurprisingly, most states and territories have already exhausted their 190 allocations for this migration program year.
Where the Demand Is – and Why Housing Matters
Priority sectors were remarkably consistent nationwide: building and construction, health, education, advanced manufacturing, and renewable energy.
A clear takeaway was that construction is now a foundation sector, not simply because of workforce shortages, but because states cannot attract or retain migrants if they cannot house them.
With the Gold Coast now Queensland’s second-largest population centre, nomination decisions are increasingly shaped by construction capacity, health, social welfare, and teaching roles. This aligns with broader population trends, with the strongest demand coming from India, the UK, China and Iran, and noticeable growth from Nepal, Pakistan and Kenya.
State-Specific Shifts Worth Watching
Several key jurisdictional updates stood out:
- New South Wales announced a significant change for 2026, with 491 Pathway 1 and Pathway 3 being replaced by a Registration of Interest (ROI) system. These pathways have become oversubscribed, and NSW is seeking more flexibility to support a broader spread of occupations, particularly across housing, construction, renewable energy and advanced manufacturing.
- Victoria closed its ROI on 28 April, conducted its final invitation round on 1 May, and confirmed that interest significantly exceeded available places. A small refusal rate (around 3–4%) was attributed largely to inflated earnings claims.
- South Australia confirmed continued reliance on DAMA and subclass 494 pathways, particularly for engineering, manufacturing and construction. Offshore licensed trades are increasingly necessary to maximise the level of experience compared to recent 485 holders.
- The Northern Territory emphasised retention rather than volume. With its 190 places fully utilised, the focus has shifted to long-term settlement, particularly in health, social services, accommodation and hospitality — and critically, encouraging movement beyond Greater Darwin.
Retention Over Numbers
One of the strongest themes across the conference was that attraction without retention is no longer sustainable.
States like the NT are placing greater weight on how long candidates have lived and worked regionally, particularly for offshore-skilled workers who relocate directly into remote areas. Employment outcomes, regional commitment, and time spent living and working in occupation (often 12 months or more) are becoming more influential than points alone.
This shift reflects a broader policy intention: migration is expected to complement the domestic workforce, not substitute it. International graduates, 485 visa holders and DAMA participants are all being assessed through this lens.
Where Should the Focus Be Next?
If regional migration is to succeed long-term, future policy needs to better reflect regional diversity. That includes:
- Differentiating “regional” settings based on actual economic and settlement capacity
- Aligning migration planning with housing supply and infrastructure
- Continuing strong pathways for critical sectors such as construction, health and renewables
- Designing systems that reward genuine regional commitment, not short-term movement
The conference reinforced that regional migration remains essential to Australia’s workforce strategy; although, it must be nuanced, flexible and grounded in local realities.
Treating all regions the same may be administratively convenient, but it no longer reflects the Australia we’re trying to grow.