One Nation’s immigration puzzle exposes a widening gap between the party and some of its own voters
Is caught in a familiar bind. The party’s voters say immigration is the issue that matters most, while one of its newest MPs. One Nation — full details here.
One Nation is caught in a familiar bind. The party’s voters say immigration is the issue that matters most, while one of its newest MPs is sounding far less hardline than the brand built by Pauline Hanson.
That tension sharpened this week after George Christensen, now part of One Nation’s machinery, told newly elected member for Farrer David Farley to stop talking about immigration. Farley has been striking a softer tone, including an appearance on Insiders where he said One Nation’s migration intake would be “not too different” in size from what the Albanese government is proposing.
A message One Nation does not want repeated
Christensen’s warning was blunt: “Shut up about immigration.” It was not the first time, according to the account given this week. The instruction matters because immigration has long been central to One Nation’s pitch, and Farley’s comments cut against that line in public.
Farley’s remarks were awkward for a party that has often used migration as a rallying cry. They also landed just as this masthead published a survey of 1,000 One Nation supporters that found about half could still be won back by establishment parties. The same survey said cutting immigration was the strongest way to do it.
That sounds neat. The reality is messier.
What voters say, and what the wider research suggests
The survey was conducted online, which calls for caution. Other research points in a different direction, showing surprisingly little emphasis on immigration within this voter cohort. Some people are even moving to One Nation despite its immigration policies.
That leaves the party facing a strange political equation. Its activist base and some voters still respond to hard lines on borders and migration. Yet a new member is publicly softening the tone, and a senior figure is trying to shut that down before it spreads.
For One Nation, the stakes are simple. If immigration stops being the loudest message, the party risks losing the clear edge that has helped define it. If it keeps pushing that issue too hard, it may be speaking past some of the people already in its column.
Farley has not exactly embraced the script. Christensen, meanwhile, is doing damage control in public view. The next test is whether the party’s leadership can keep its message tight, or whether more of its own people start saying the quiet part out loud.
