One Nation has started the week with a blunder after struggling to define one of its key policies – immigration.
The Pauline Hanson-led party's surge in popularity this year, according to polling, has been met with additional scrutiny over its policies – and none more so than the one it is best known for.
But, as they attempt to explain how they'd reduce migration while ensuring enough skilled and essential workers to keep the country running, One Nation's members have repeatedly tripped up.
Policy evolution since 2025
Here's what they've said about immigration since 2025.
Before 2025, the party's official policy, according to its website, was to support zero net migration. The party said it would permit only highly skilled migrants from “culturally cohesive” countries.
In early 2025, One Nation updated its immigration policy online, revealing it would cap visas at 130,000 per year. It was unclear whether this was permanent migration or a net overseas migration (Nom) cap. Nom is the overall gain or loss of population through long-term arrivals and departures. Permanent migration is the number of long-term visas offered to skilled workers and family members.
Conflicting statements from members
In March 2025, Malcolm Roberts told the Senate One Nation's immigration policy would actually result in a negative net immigration rate of 90,000 a year.
“With around 220,000 departures a year, we will only allow 130,000 people a year to enter. Ninety thousand more people will leave than will enter,” he said.
In August 2025, Pauline Hanson said in a late-night adjournment speech to the Senate: “We must cut the numbers drastically. One Nation's policy is to cap immigration at approximately 130,000 per year, numbers we can actually accommodate. When we can, then we can look at increasing those numbers over a period of time.”
Net zero proposal and further confusion
In November 2025, NSW senator Sean Bell proposed net zero migration – equalising the number of people entering the country with those leaving – for a period of five years.
“The other parties have ignored the concerns and the pleas for help from everyday Australians struggling against mass immigration and the pressure it puts on this country. It is time that it stops,” Bell said.
“This debate is about how many people should come to this country. This debate is about the manner in which they come to this country and the levels in which they come. We have proposed a net zero pause for five years. That is a reasonable suggestion, and it is a reasonable question to put to the Australian people so as to give them a voice.”
In March 2026, Roberts said in a social media post that the immigration policy was guided by “negative Net Immigration until housing & infrastructure catch up”.
Byelection campaign and recent clarifications
During the Farrer byelection campaign in April 2026, the then One Nation candidate, David Farley, was asked whether a Nom rate of 306,000 was too many. He responded: “No, it's probably not.”
In a social media post before his election in May 2026, Farley clarified that a Nom of 306,000 was now “way too many”.
“One Nation will cap immigration at 130,000 per year,” he said. “We need an immigration policy that works in our national interest, not against it. In the middle of a housing crisis, 306,000 per year is way too many.”
During an interview with News24 in August 2026, Hanson said she wanted “net migration [of] about 130,000” then said she wanted “to see 130,000 as the permanent number that are here”.
Joyce later clarified the 130,000 figure was net migration, not permanent – but that permanent places would be included within the 130,000 figure.
On Sunday, Farley told ABC's Insiders the party's Nom target was 130,000 but a minimum of 100,000 more workers were excluded. The final figure, at least 230,000, was “not too different” from Labor's, Farley said.
Joyce walked back Farley's claims the next day, explaining they were a mistake made by an early career politician. “There's not going to be an extra 100 [thousand] on top of [the 130,000 Nom target],” he said.
