One Nation’s immigration policy is clear as mud – but that ambiguity could be a secret weapon for Pauline Hanson
One Nation has experienced a swell in popular support in the past year, and has primarily done so off the back of tough talk on immigration – a policy area almost synonymous with its leader, Pauline Hanson.
But a series of blunders this week show a party unable, or unwilling, to clearly articulate what it would actually do about immigration levels.
Does it want “net zero” immigration, as it boasted for many years? Or does it want a small increase – a net gain of up to 130, 000 people per year – as Barnaby Joyce said emphatically this week?
Let’s step through what key figures have said – and what the party’s policy says.
Officially, the policy listed on the party’s website is a promise to cap visas at 130,000 per year. Whether that would mean a net overseas migration (Nom) target or a permanent visa ceiling is unclear.
Joyce has said this is the party’s Nom cap. On Thursday, Hanson reiterated this.
Nom is the overall gain or loss of population through long-term arrivals and departures. It measures people coming into or leaving the country for a period of at least 12 months over 16 months and thus excludes tourists.
This week David Farley said One Nation’s Nom was 130,000 but that it wouldn’t include an additional 100,000 skilled workers, backpackers and Pacific and Timor-Leste labour through the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (Palm) scheme.
Joyce said that wasn’t right. The former Nationals MP, who defected to One Nation last December, said there were no additional visas hidden from the policy’s headline figure, ruling Farley’s comments out as a rookie mistake.
“When people are new in parliament, they can sometimes get things incorrect,” Joyce said.
The messaging was further muddied after the contribution of the Queensland senator Malcolm Roberts. In a brief interview with the far-right influencer Andre Mamet, known as Ausmaxx, on Tuesday, Roberts appeared to say he supported “net negative migration” – when fewer people enter the country than leave – but he also supported a cap on net migration of 130,000, which implies more people coming than leaving.
“What we’re saying is, every year about 220,000 people leave. I didn’t realise it was so high. And what we’re saying is, we will cap the number of people, net people, [that] come in at 130,000,” Roberts said.
“So if 220,000 people leave … and we allow in 220,000, then that’s – we can’t do that migration. Net migration is complex because it talks about, in 12 months out of only 16 months, the number of people who come in minus the number of people to leave.
“So, if you have 130,000 people coming in, that’s a net migration of minus 90,000. In other words, you lose your population by 90,000. So what we’re saying is the cap on net is 130,000.”
Both Roberts and Hanson have made numerous social media posts supporting “net zero” and net negative migration in the years leading up to 2026.
Hanson confused things further on Thursday when she said the 130,000 figure target was for Nom but didn’t include Pacific labour workers. When asked if that meant there would be more than 130,000 migrants allowed each year under One Nation, she responded: “Correct.”
“Correct, because your Palm workers, rural and regional Australia would die if they didn’t have the workers coming in, and especially the abattoirs and the farmers. So that’s a different program,” she told a News Corp Bush Summit panel.
“These people are given accommodation by the farming sector and the businesses that employ them. So that is not the big impact here. But with immigration, you can’t just tie it to your housing, because infrastructure is another big thing and hospitals and schools and the nursing homes – that has to be all accounted for so it’s just not about houses.”
Hanson added Farley “didn’t understand” and “got confused” when discussing the Palm workers over the weekend.
“As I’ve always said, Palm workers is, the visa-holders that can come into the country. They’re provided accommodation, usually by those on the farms. They’re not taking up the housing. So that’s a totally different matter.”
If the 130,000 figure One Nation commits to is, indeed, a Nom target, it would mean a permanent population increase of 130,000. Each year, about 200,000 people leave the country, including Australians leaving to study and work abroad. Assuming that figure remains consistent, a Nom of 130,000 would mean 330,000 arrive in the country.
However, if One Nation’s policy is a hard cap offering 130,000 visas each year, as the party’s policy says and as Hanson and Roberts argued for less than a year ago, the result would probably lead to negative migration.
The problem with various explanations and interpretations is that it’s impossible for voters to determine which are accurate, and whether others are misleading.
But for a party trying to appeal to its more extreme supporters who argue for hardline policies, it’s a beneficial political tactic, whether intentional or not.
Farley’s comments, which included the suggestion that One Nation’s Nom target was “not too different” from the Albanese government’s, drew a lot of criticism from a number of far-right figures.
Roberts’ interview with Mamet this week could be viewed as an attempt to bring some of them back.
Policy ambiguity has long been Hanson’s secret weapon.
Whether it remains that way under increasing scrutiny of the party, especially under the spotlight of an election campaign, remains to be seen.
Sarah Basford Canales is a political reporter for Guardian Australia
Read the full story at The Guardian ↗
The party’s key figures are either unable or unwilling to neatly articulate their migration targets, contradicting one another – and themselves. Get our breaking news email , free…
This lens runs the verified story through Cinnamon's AI — wired in the next step.
One Nation has experienced a swell in popular support in the past year, and has primarily done so off the back of tough talk on immigration – a policy area almost synonymous with its leader, Pauline Hanson.
But a series of blunders this week show a party unable, or unwilling, to clearly articulate what it would actually do about immigration levels.
Does it want “net zero” immigration, as it boasted for many years? Or does it want a small increase – a net gain of up to 130, 000 people per year – as Barnaby Joyce said emphatically this week?
Let’s step through what key figures have said – and what the party’s policy says.
Officially, the policy listed on the party’s website is a promise to cap visas at 130,000 per year. Whether that would mean a net overseas migration (Nom) target or a permanent visa ceiling is unclear.
Joyce has said this is the party’s Nom cap. On Thursday, Hanson reiterated this.
Nom is the overall gain or loss of population through long-term arrivals and departures. It measures people coming into or leaving the country for a period of at least 12 months over 16 months and thus excludes tourists.
This week David Farley said One Nation’s Nom was 130,000 but that it wouldn’t include an additional 100,000 skilled workers, backpackers and Pacific and Timor-Leste labour through the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (Palm) scheme.
Joyce said that wasn’t right. The former Nationals MP, who defected to One Nation last December, said there were no additional visas hidden from the policy’s headline figure, ruling Farley’s comments out as a rookie mistake.
“When people are new in parliament, they can sometimes get things incorrect,” Joyce said.
The messaging was further muddied after the contribution of the Queensland senator Malcolm Roberts. In a brief interview with the far-right influencer Andre Mamet, known as Ausmaxx, on Tuesday, Roberts appeared to say he supported “net negative migration” – when fewer people enter the country than leave – but he also supported a cap on net migration of 130,000, which implies more people coming than leaving.
“What we’re saying is, every year about 220,000 people leave. I didn’t realise it was so high. And what we’re saying is, we will cap the number of people, net people, [that] come in at 130,000,” Roberts said.
“So if 220,000 people leave … and we allow in 220,000, then that’s – we can’t do that migration. Net migration is complex because it talks about, in 12 months out of only 16 months, the number of people who come in minus the number of people to leave.
“So, if you have 130,000 people coming in, that’s a net migration of minus 90,000. In other words, you lose your population by 90,000. So what we’re saying is the cap on net is 130,000.”
Both Roberts and Hanson have made numerous social media posts supporting “net zero” and net negative migration in the years leading up to 2026.
Hanson confused things further on Thursday when she said the 130,000 figure target was for Nom but didn’t include Pacific labour workers. When asked if that meant there would be more than 130,000 migrants allowed each year under One Nation, she responded: “Correct.”
“Correct, because your Palm workers, rural and regional Australia would die if they didn’t have the workers coming in, and especially the abattoirs and the farmers. So that’s a different program,” she told a News Corp Bush Summit panel.
“These people are given accommodation by the farming sector and the businesses that employ them. So that is not the big impact here. But with immigration, you can’t just tie it to your housing, because infrastructure is another big thing and hospitals and schools and the nursing homes – that has to be all accounted for so it’s just not about houses.”
Hanson added Farley “didn’t understand” and “got confused” when discussing the Palm workers over the weekend.
“As I’ve always said, Palm workers is, the visa-holders that can come into the country. They’re provided accommodation, usually by those on the farms. They’re not taking up the housing. So that’s a totally different matter.”
If the 130,000 figure One Nation commits to is, indeed, a Nom target, it would mean a permanent population increase of 130,000. Each year, about 200,000 people leave the country, including Australians leaving to study and work abroad. Assuming that figure remains consistent, a Nom of 130,000 would mean 330,000 arrive in the country.
However, if One Nation’s policy is a hard cap offering 130,000 visas each year, as the party’s policy says and as Hanson and Roberts argued for less than a year ago, the result would probably lead to negative migration.
The problem with various explanations and interpretations is that it’s impossible for voters to determine which are accurate, and whether others are misleading.
But for a party trying to appeal to its more extreme supporters who argue for hardline policies, it’s a beneficial political tactic, whether intentional or not.
Farley’s comments, which included the suggestion that One Nation’s Nom target was “not too different” from the Albanese government’s, drew a lot of criticism from a number of far-right figures.
Roberts’ interview with Mamet this week could be viewed as an attempt to bring some of them back.
Policy ambiguity has long been Hanson’s secret weapon.
Whether it remains that way under increasing scrutiny of the party, especially under the spotlight of an election campaign, remains to be seen.
Sarah Basford Canales is a political reporter for Guardian Australia
Read the full story at The Guardian ↗
One Nation has experienced a swell in popular support in the past year, and has primarily done so off the back of tough talk on immigration – a policy area almost synonymous with its leader, Pauline Hanson.
But a series of blunders this week show a party unable, or unwilling, to clearly articulate what it would actually do about immigration levels.
Does it want “net zero” immigration, as it boasted for many years? Or does it want a small increase – a net gain of up to 130, 000 people per year – as Barnaby Joyce said emphatically this week?
Let’s step through what key figures have said – and what the party’s policy says.
Officially, the policy listed on the party’s website is a promise to cap visas at 130,000 per year. Whether that would mean a net overseas migration (Nom) target or a permanent visa ceiling is unclear.
Joyce has said this is the party’s Nom cap. On Thursday, Hanson reiterated this.
Nom is the overall gain or loss of population through long-term arrivals and departures. It measures people coming into or leaving the country for a period of at least 12 months over 16 months and thus excludes tourists.
This week David Farley said One Nation’s Nom was 130,000 but that it wouldn’t include an additional 100,000 skilled workers, backpackers and Pacific and Timor-Leste labour through the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (Palm) scheme.
Joyce said that wasn’t right. The former Nationals MP, who defected to One Nation last December, said there were no additional visas hidden from the policy’s headline figure, ruling Farley’s comments out as a rookie mistake.
“When people are new in parliament, they can sometimes get things incorrect,” Joyce said.
The messaging was further muddied after the contribution of the Queensland senator Malcolm Roberts. In a brief interview with the far-right influencer Andre Mamet, known as Ausmaxx, on Tuesday, Roberts appeared to say he supported “net negative migration” – when fewer people enter the country than leave – but he also supported a cap on net migration of 130,000, which implies more people coming than leaving.
“What we’re saying is, every year about 220,000 people leave. I didn’t realise it was so high. And what we’re saying is, we will cap the number of people, net people, [that] come in at 130,000,” Roberts said.
“So if 220,000 people leave … and we allow in 220,000, then that’s – we can’t do that migration. Net migration is complex because it talks about, in 12 months out of only 16 months, the number of people who come in minus the number of people to leave.
“So, if you have 130,000 people coming in, that’s a net migration of minus 90,000. In other words, you lose your population by 90,000. So what we’re saying is the cap on net is 130,000.”
Both Roberts and Hanson have made numerous social media posts supporting “net zero” and net negative migration in the years leading up to 2026.
Hanson confused things further on Thursday when she said the 130,000 figure target was for Nom but didn’t include Pacific labour workers. When asked if that meant there would be more than 130,000 migrants allowed each year under One Nation, she responded: “Correct.”
“Correct, because your Palm workers, rural and regional Australia would die if they didn’t have the workers coming in, and especially the abattoirs and the farmers. So that’s a different program,” she told a News Corp Bush Summit panel.
“These people are given accommodation by the farming sector and the businesses that employ them. So that is not the big impact here. But with immigration, you can’t just tie it to your housing, because infrastructure is another big thing and hospitals and schools and the nursing homes – that has to be all accounted for so it’s just not about houses.”
Hanson added Farley “didn’t understand” and “got confused” when discussing the Palm workers over the weekend.
“As I’ve always said, Palm workers is, the visa-holders that can come into the country. They’re provided accommodation, usually by those on the farms. They’re not taking up the housing. So that’s a totally different matter.”
If the 130,000 figure One Nation commits to is, indeed, a Nom target, it would mean a permanent population increase of 130,000. Each year, about 200,000 people leave the country, including Australians leaving to study and work abroad. Assuming that figure remains consistent, a Nom of 130,000 would mean 330,000 arrive in the country.
However, if One Nation’s policy is a hard cap offering 130,000 visas each year, as the party’s policy says and as Hanson and Roberts argued for less than a year ago, the result would probably lead to negative migration.
The problem with various explanations and interpretations is that it’s impossible for voters to determine which are accurate, and whether others are misleading.
But for a party trying to appeal to its more extreme supporters who argue for hardline policies, it’s a beneficial political tactic, whether intentional or not.
Farley’s comments, which included the suggestion that One Nation’s Nom target was “not too different” from the Albanese government’s, drew a lot of criticism from a number of far-right figures.
Roberts’ interview with Mamet this week could be viewed as an attempt to bring some of them back.
Policy ambiguity has long been Hanson’s secret weapon.
Whether it remains that way under increasing scrutiny of the party, especially under the spotlight of an election campaign, remains to be seen.
Sarah Basford Canales is a political reporter for Guardian Australia
Read the full story at The Guardian ↗
This lens runs the verified story through Cinnamon's AI — wired in the next step.
- The party’s key figures are either unable or unwilling to neatly articulate their migration targets, contradicting one another – and themselves.
- Get our breaking news email , free…