Australia is very good at counting migration activity. We know how many visas were granted, how long applications took, how many people arrived and departed, and how the Migration Program was allocated across different streams.
Home Affairs publishes a substantial amount of useful data. The annual Migration Program Report tracks the composition of the permanent program, including the Skill Stream, Family Stream, regional outcomes, source countries and top ANZSCO occupation groups related to skilled migration. Home Affairs also publishes temporary skilled visa statistics, including grants, nominated occupations, sponsor industries, salaries by industry and location, and visa holders in Australia.
That tells us a lot about what the system is processing. It does not tell us whether sponsored workers remain in the roles or locations they were nominated for, whether employers solve the shortages they identified, or whether migrants progress economically over time.
Australia’s labour market needs are changing quickly. Jobs and Skills Australia’s March 2026 Occupation Shortage Report recorded a national vacancy fill rate of 68.2 per cent. Metropolitan employers recorded a vacancy fill rate of 69.7 per cent, while regional employers recorded a lower fill rate of 65.0 per cent. The report also found that vacancy fill rates declined across all skill level occupation groups, with Skill Level 3 occupations remaining the lowest at 55.5 per cent (trade and technician occupations requiring a Certificate III or IV or equivalent experience such as cooks, bakers, hairdressers, motor mechanics, bricklayers, and fitters).
What could we measure?
A more useful framework would look beyond grants and processing times and ask whether the system is delivering against the outcomes it is designed to achieve.
We could measure occupational retention: are skilled migrants still working in their nominated occupation, or a closely related occupation, three to five years after grant?
We could measure employer outcomes: did sponsorship address the workforce shortage the employer identified, and for how long?
We could also measure occupation targeting: are the jobs prioritised in skilled visa settings the right jobs, based on current and projected labour market need?
We could measure salary and career progression: are sponsored workers advancing over time, or remaining static at the minimum salary settings required for visa purposes?
This would align with the broader policy direction already articulated by government. The Government’s Employment White Paper of Jobs and Opportunities describes the need for a dynamic and inclusive labour market, stronger productivity growth, and a better-skilled and more adaptable workforce. Migration policy should be assessed against those same objectives, not just against administrative throughput.
Better metrics would also improve the quality of immigration policy direction and policy debate. If a visa category has high grant numbers but low occupational retention, that is telling. If regional pathways are successful in grant numbers but weak in long-term regional settlement – also telling. If employer-sponsored workers are concentrated in shortage occupations but not progressing economically, that should also inform reform.
The key gap is not a complete absence of data. It is the absence of a consolidated public performance framework that links migration activity, labour market need, employer outcomes, regional retention, occupational retention and longer-term migrant progression.
Written by Sarah Loch-Wilkinson
LIV Accredited Specialist in Immigration Law, Director at Visa Executive
