One Nation’s migration target keeps shifting, exposing confusion inside the party
Has spent the week trying to explain its immigration policy after senior figures gave conflicting versions of the party’s own target. The muddle
One Nation has spent the week trying to explain its immigration policy after senior figures gave conflicting versions of the party’s own target. The muddle has spilled into public view as Pauline Hanson’s party tries to present a hard line on migration while still claiming Australia needs enough workers to keep key sectors running.
At the centre of the dispute is a number that keeps moving. One Nation’s website says it backs zero net migration and would allow only highly skilled migrants from what it calls “culturally cohesive” countries. But party statements over the past year have also pointed to a cap of 130,000 visas a year, with no clear explanation of whether that means permanent migration or net overseas migration.
Contradictory messages
The confusion sharpened after Hanson posted on X on Sunday that her party would cut net overseas migration to 130,000 people a year. That came after Farrer MP David Farley suggested in an interview that the number would end up higher than that. Hanson later deleted an earlier post from March that carried a lower target, adding to the uncertainty around where the party now stands.
By Monday morning, New England MP Barnaby Joyce was backing Hanson and insisting 130,000 had always been One Nation’s position. “We’ve been saying that all along,” he told Sunrise, describing the figure as net overseas migration. But the party’s own public comments have not matched that line, and the 130,000 figure only appears to have been clearly defined that way last week.
Pressure from voters, business and rivals
The confusion matters because One Nation’s anti-immigration platform is a core part of its appeal as polling has lifted the party this year. Yet the party is also confronting the practical politics of migration: Australia’s economy relies on skilled and essential workers, and any sharp cut risks collisions with business, housing and infrastructure pressures.
Hanson has not softened that message. In comments reported earlier this month, she said she did “not care” if cuts to skilled migration hurt businesses. She also clarified that the 130,000 cap applied to permanent migration, not net overseas migration, a distinction that only deepened the sense that the policy was shifting by the day.
Harder line, wider scope
The party has also broadened its rhetoric beyond raw numbers. Hanson has called for arrivals from countries marked as “do not travel” zones by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to be banned, citing security concerns. DFAT currently lists 23 countries as unsafe for travel because of threats including terrorism, kidnapping and armed conflict.
One Nation has been trying to sell a simple message on immigration. The problem is that its own MPs keep describing different versions of it. With the latest correction on Monday, Joyce sought to steady the line — but the party still has not settled the basic question of whether 130,000 is a permanent migration ceiling, a net overseas migration target, or something else entirely.
