One Nation’s inconsistent immigration policy statements and targets

Consensus Summary

One Nation’s immigration policy has descended into chaos this week as its MPs contradict each other over whether the party’s headline figure of 130,000 represents a net overseas migration (Nom) target or a hard visa cap. The confusion began when David Farley, the party’s MP for Farrer, told ABC’s *Insiders* that the true migration total would be closer to 230,000 once skilled workers, backpackers, and Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) workers were included. This claim directly contradicted Pauline Hanson’s insistence that the 130,000 figure was the party’s firm Nom target, forcing Barnaby Joyce to dismiss Farley’s remarks as a 'rookie mistake.' The inconsistency has exposed deep divisions within the party, with Hanson deleting an earlier social media post that suggested the 130,000 cap would actually result in negative migration (minus 100,000) due to high departure rates.

The policy confusion stems from One Nation’s rapid rise in popularity, fueled by its hardline stance on immigration—a core issue since Hanson’s 1996 election. The party’s website still lists a 130,000 visa cap, which would likely lead to negative migration given that around 220,000 people leave Australia annually. However, party leaders now argue this figure represents Nom, not visas, creating ambiguity. Farley’s comments—suggesting the party’s approach was 'not too different' from Labor’s 225,000 target by 2028—sparked backlash from both major parties and far-right supporters, who accused One Nation of abandoning its core platform. The Coalition, meanwhile, has signaled its own Nom target will be 'well below 200,000,' with Liberal housing spokesman Andrew Bragg proposing under 180,000.

Key figures have offered conflicting explanations. Hanson has repeatedly emphasized that the 130,000 figure excludes PALM workers (around 40,000) and essential skilled migrants (another 70,000 in aged care alone), implying the total could exceed 200,000. Farley’s initial remarks—where he suggested a Nom of 306,000 was 'probably not too many'—were later walked back, but the damage was done, with critics labeling the party ‘all over the shop.’ Joyce, who defected from the Nationals last December, has tried to restore order by insisting the 130,000 figure is non-negotiable, but his clarification came too late to stem the fallout. The Guardian and SMH both noted that Hanson’s deleted March post—where she claimed the 130,000 cap would yield negative migration—further muddied the narrative, as it directly contradicted her recent statements.

While the major parties have seized on One Nation’s inconsistencies, the party’s internal disputes reflect broader challenges in crafting a credible migration policy. Labor and the Coalition are also struggling to balance reduced migration with workforce needs, particularly in agriculture, healthcare, and construction. Business groups have warned that a race to the bottom on migration could exacerbate labor shortages, with the Australian Industry Group urging stability in skilled migration programs. Meanwhile, One Nation’s regional MPs, like Farley, face pressure to protect industries reliant on migrant labor, creating tension between the party’s populist rhetoric and practical realities. The West Australia’s analysis highlighted that One Nation’s 130,000 Nom target is still higher than any year in the 1990s, though far below the record 548,800 peak in 2023.

The unresolved question is whether One Nation can clarify its stance before the next election. Hanson’s social media activity—including fluctuating between 'net zero' and 'net negative' migration—has only deepened skepticism. Farley’s admission that the party’s policy might not differ drastically from Labor’s has alienated hardline supporters, while Joyce’s attempt to correct the record has done little to restore confidence. The Coalition and Labor have both criticized One Nation for lacking a coherent plan, with Opposition Leader Angus Taylor accusing the party of 'making policy on the run.' As the articles note, the confusion may be intentional—a strategy to appeal to both anti-immigration voters and those concerned about labor shortages—but it risks undermining One Nation’s credibility. With polling showing the party’s support slipping slightly behind the Coalition, the next few weeks will be critical in determining whether it can regain control of its messaging or face further erosion in the lead-up to an election.