In August 2023, Australia’s National Housing Accord set an ambitious goal: 1.2 million new homes by mid‑2029. From an immigration and workforce perspective, the challenge was always clear – delivery depends on labour capacity as much as approvals, capital, or planning reform.
BuildSkills Australia’s Housing Workforce Capacity Study estimated the sector would require an additional 116,700 construction workers above business‑as‑usual projections to meet the target. Immigration was identified as one of the fastest ways to help close that gap.
So, thirty months on, where do we stand?
The National Housing Supply and Affordability Council’s March 2026 Outlook paints a sobering picture. Only 219,000 homes have been completed in the first five quarters of the Accord which is well below the 240,000–280,000 annual run rate required. No state or territory is fully on track, and projections now point to delivery slipping to June 2030 or beyond.
There are positives. Building approvals and commencements are up 17%, construction times have improved by 10%, and real costs have stabilised slightly. Yet one constraint continues to dominate: labour and workforce capacity.
The Workforce Reality: Why Migration Still Matters
Residential construction remains in a structurally tight labour market. An ageing workforce, persistently low female participation, and a long‑training apprenticeship model mean domestic supply alone cannot scale fast enough in the short to medium term.
BuildSkills identified five channels to close the gap:
- Apprenticeships: +23,000 workers
- Female participation: +51,000 workers
- Immigration: ~32,000 workers
- Productivity gains: equivalent to +30,000 workers
- Training system capacity: critical enabler across all channels
From an immigration lens, the significance is clear: migration can deliver roughly a quarter of the additional workforce needed, and it does so faster than most other levers.
This aligns with what industry bodies such as Master Builders Australia continue to report – persistent shortages across skilled trades are driving up costs and delaying housing and infrastructure delivery.
If construction captured a migration share comparable to the health sector, Australia could still secure around 32,000 additional workers by 2029, reducing the workforce gap by approximately 27% and easing pressure in high‑demand sub‑sectors such as building installation services.
Policy Direction Is Improving but Delivery Is Not
On paper, migration settings are moving in the right direction.
The 2025-26 Migration Program maintains 185,000 places, with a strong skilled stream and explicit recognition of construction and infrastructure priorities. Many core construction roles such as electricians, plumbers, carpenters, bricklayers and project managers sit on the Core Skills Occupation List (CSOL). The Skills in Demand (SID) visa, alongside revised income thresholds, is intended to make employer sponsorship more responsive.
Yet industry sentiment is unwavering, the system is not delivering at scale.
Migration outcomes remain:
- Highly employer‑driven
- Difficult for small and fragmented construction businesses
- Constrained by licensing, skills recognition, and processing friction
Critically, construction needs to attract a higher‑than‑average share of skilled migrants. Unlike many sectors, each new resident adds both labour and housing demand – Australia still requires an estimated 4-5 construction workers per 100 new residents just to avoid falling further behind.
Where Immigration Works and Where It Still Struggles
The BuildSkills study highlights an uncomfortable truth: migration works best where barriers are lowest.
- Lower and semi‑skilled roles (trade assistants, painters, plasterers, landscapers) integrate faster and face fewer regulatory hurdles.
- White‑collar roles (engineers, architects, project managers) are comparatively well supported by existing visa pathways.
The greatest friction remains with licensed trades such as electricians, plumbers and similar roles, even when migrants come from comparable regulatory systems. Local licensing, skills assessments, and gap training remain slow and inconsistent, undermining the very speed advantage immigration should deliver.
The Reforms Still Needed
From an immigration strategy perspective, the industry’s requests are remarkably consistent:
- Intermediary sponsorship models to support SMEs
- More market‑responsive eligibility, relying less on rigid occupation lists
- A dedicated construction skills pathway, with strong state and regional incentives
- Expanded use of the PALM program for non‑licensed construction roles
- Faster bridging, licensing and local experience pathways
- Active global talent attraction, not passive employer‑led demand
These reforms are not radical – they are targeted, practical, and repeatedly endorsed by industry.
Conclusion
Immigration is not a silver bullet for Australia’s housing crisis. It cannot solve the problem on its own, it adds to housing demand, and it remains less effective for some licensed trades.
However, it is the fastest and most scalable lever available to boost construction workforce capacity in the short term. When targeted by occupation, region and project type, immigration can materially reduce labour constraints, potentially closing around 27% of the workforce gap, and act as a critical bridge while domestic workforce reforms take effect.
As of April 2026, housing delivery is falling behind and labour shortages remain entrenched. Immigration, when designed and delivered well, is a high‑impact, partial solution that Australia can ill afford to underutilise. The policy direction is clear – the challenge now is execution: faster pathways, industry‑fit settings and volume at scale.
The question is no longer whether immigration should support housing delivery, but whether reform will happen quickly enough to materially change the outcome.
