Introduction
Since its foundation in 1997, One Nation has positioned itself as a populist corrective to what it frames as the failures of mainstream Australian politics. Immigration, a perennial and emotionally charged topic in Australian public life, has been central to the party’s platform. One Nation’s policy prescriptions – dramatic cuts to visa intakes, mass deportations of people it labels “illegal migrants,” the reintroduction of Temporary Protection Visas, extended waiting periods for citizenship and welfare access, and a retreat from international refugee obligations – are presented as common-sense measures to “put Australians first.” They are offered as straightforward responses to complex problems: housing pressures, perceived downward pressure on wages, stretched public services, and alleged exploitation of immigration pathways.
This essay examines those prescriptions from three interlinked perspectives. First, it assesses the economic claims and the evidence that One Nation largely ignores or misrepresents. Second, it critiques the practical feasibility of the party’s measures, exposing the logistical, legal, and fiscal obstacles that render them largely unworkable. Third, and perhaps most importantly, it explores the ideological and rhetorical foundations of the platform, illuminating how racialised narratives and xenophobic impulses are embedded in the party’s public posture. The task here is not to offer alternative policy prescriptions, but to engage deeply with the assertions and assumptions that underpin One Nation’s approach to immigration and to assess their likely consequences if implemented.
Overview of One Nation’s Immigration Platform
One Nation articulates a suite of immigration measures framed around national sovereignty and prioritising Australian citizens. Core elements include a drastic reduction in annual visa intakes to around 130,000, the deportation of tens of thousands of people characterised as visa overstayers or “illegal migrants,” the reintroduction of Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs) for refugees and asylum seekers, a prolonged – eight-year – waiting period before new arrivals can access citizenship and welfare benefits, and a campaign to close perceived “loopholes” in skilled and student visa programs.
These measures are defended in economic terms: lower migration is portrayed as a remedy for rising housing costs, wage stagnation, overwhelmed infrastructure, and under-pressure social services. One Nation’s rhetoric frequently invokes a narrative of cultural threat, warning that unchecked migration will erode national identity. The language used mixes appeals to economic insecurity with fears of cultural displacement and references to national homogeneity. This mingling of economic grievances and identity politics is fundamental to the party’s appeal and central to how its immigration agenda is framed.
Economic Realities Overlooked
A serious appraisal of immigration policy must begin with empirical evidence about how migration affects economic performance, labour markets, public finances, innovation, and demographic sustainability. One Nation’s calculus – that substantially lower migration will automatically improve wages, free up housing, and relieve public services – flattens a complex set of interactions into a simplistic causal chain. A review of contemporary economic literature and national statistics tells a more nuanced story.
Population growth driven by migration expands the pool of workers, consumers, and taxpayers. In Australia, decades of migration have supported economic expansion, demographic renewal, and sectoral skill needs. Migrants disproportionately arrive in their prime working years, contributing a labour force that complements the domestic workforce and helps offset the pressures of an ageing population. Where domestic fertility and workforce participation rates cannot sustain economic growth on their own, migration has been a stabilising force, enabling higher GDP and averting some of the fiscal strains associated with an older age profile.
Productivity and innovation are also shaped by migration flows. Skilled migrants carry not only labour, but also human capital, professional networks and entrepreneurial ambition. Studies across advanced economies demonstrate a positive relationship between migration and measures of innovation, including patenting and firm creation. In regional contexts, migrants can act as catalysts for economic diversification and local dynamism in areas where native population decline would otherwise intensify. Moreover, research shows that the presence of migrants often complements, rather than substitutes for, local labour; native employment can rise in response to immigration, as increased demand accompanies larger populations and new business creation.
Fiscal impacts are commonly misunderstood in public debate. While some newcomers require public services upon arrival, the lifetime fiscal contribution of many migrants – particularly those entering through skilled streams – can be positive. They pay taxes, raise consumption, and increase the tax base in ways that support public expenditure. International students, a critical part of Australia’s higher education export sector, generate substantial revenue that funds universities, research, and local economies. Curtailing those flows could lead to precipitous declines in university income, job losses in education and allied sectors, and reduced R&D capacity.
Housing and infrastructure concerns frequently surface as arguments for sharply reduced migration. Yet housing market dynamics are shaped by domestic planning, land use regulation, construction sector capacity, supply chain issues, and the distributional politics of development. Migration affects demand, but is not the primary driver of constrained housing supply. Policies that disregard the supply-side determinants of housing affordability misattribute causation: reducing migration without addressing the bottlenecks that limit dwelling construction and increase costs may alleviate some demand-side pressure in the short term, but it would not fix the structural drivers of housing scarcity.
The Naivety of Simplified Causal Narratives
One Nation’s proposals reveal a conceptual naivety in several respects. First is the assumption that migration can be treated mechanically, as if it were a tap that can be turned on and off without effects beyond headline reductions in population flow. Migration is embedded in global labour markets, international education networks, family reunion chains, and transnational business linkages. Abrupt, large-scale reductions in visa intakes would reverberate across sectors that depend upon predictable flows of talent and students.
Second is the conviction that migration is a zero-sum contest over jobs and wages. Empirical research undermines this binary framing: immigration can increase the size of the economy, the diversity of skills available, and the opportunities for native workers. Migrants often fill roles that are complementary to those taken by local workers, and they can relieve labour shortages that constrain business growth. Policies that assume strict substitution – that each migrant directly displaces a domestic worker – fail to account for the ways in which higher population and labour participation can expand demand for goods and services and create new jobs.
Third is the belief that punitive administrative measures, such as long waits for welfare or citizenship, or widespread deportations, will be administratively straightforward and politically costless. Such measures ignore bureaucratic complexity, legal protections that constrain removal processes, the diplomatic implications of mass deportations, and the human consequences that can, in turn, stimulate litigation, international censure, and domestic protest. The political salience of a purportedly “tough” approach may be real, but translating rhetoric into effective and lawful practice requires administrative capacity and legal frameworks that are often absent in populist proposals.
Fourth is an underestimation of knock-on effects. Curtailing student visas massively damages university revenue, undermines research capacity, and inflicts ripple effects on local economies where students consume housing, retail, and services. Reducing skilled migration can impair sectors already experiencing shortages – healthcare, agriculture, and technology among them – creating bottlenecks here that offset purported benefits elsewhere. The naive assumption that restricting flows will proportionately relieve pressure on housing or public services neglects the adaptive responses of markets and institutions and the international reputational costs that may follow such measures.
Unworkability in Implementation
Beyond conceptual simplifications, One Nation’s immigration prescriptions encounter substantial practical barriers that call their implementability into question. The logistical, legal, fiscal, and diplomatic dimensions of mass deportations, visa caps, and rights withdrawal present serious challenges.
Mass deportations, for example, implicate identification, enforcement, and removal processes that are time-consuming and costly. People without current lawful status are not always readily identifiable, and removal requires cooperation from countries of origin via diplomatic channels and travel documentation. Many nations will not accept the return of nationals without negotiation; some individuals lack clear nationality. Moreover, administrative processes for review and appeal are embedded in domestic legal systems and international human rights obligations, and attempts to curtail these can lead to legal challenges and reputational damage. The costs of large-scale enforcement – in personnel, detention facilities, legal services, and transportation – would be significant, and their distribution across federal and state budgets is often contested.
Severe caps on annual visas would have profound fiscal consequences. Revenue flows from international education, temporary skilled workers’ consumption, and the tax contributions of newly arrived workers are non-trivial. Universities reliant on international student fees would face revenue shortfalls leading to staff redundancies, reduced course offerings, and diminished postgraduate research capacity. Regional communities that host universities or depend on migrant labour in agriculture and healthcare would feel immediate economic pain. The longer-term costs of lost human capital accumulation – fewer connections to global networks, fewer innovative enterprises, and diminished entrepreneurship – are harder to quantify but real.
Temporary Protection Visas, historically, have proven costly in human and fiscal terms without clear deterrent effects. TPVs can impose significant mental health tolls on asylum seekers by introducing prolonged uncertainty, which in turn increases health service demands and legal support needs. Evidence suggests that deterrence is a function of push factors and the perceived availability of safe alternatives, not only the strictness of domestic protection regimes. In short, reintroducing TPVs is unlikely to meaningfully reduce asylum inflows in contexts where conflict and persecution remain the primary drivers.
An eight-year wait for citizenship and welfare access introduces administrative complexity and produces a stratified population with limited integration incentives. Prolonging exclusion can entrench poverty and social marginalisation, increasing the need for remedial services and inhibiting social cohesion. It also risks creating a class of de facto permanent non-citizens whose precarious status undermines long-term labour market attachment and housing stability, counteracting any imagined fiscal savings with higher social and administrative costs.
Legal and international obligations constrain unilateral retreats from global frameworks. While governments can re-interpret or selectively implement international agreements, wholesale withdrawal from instruments such as the Refugee Convention carries diplomatic costs and may affect Australia’s standing in international fora. It also raises questions about the treatment of people fleeing persecution, exposing the country to criticism and potential legal challenges domestically and abroad.
The Racist and Radicalised Foundations
Policy arguments do not exist in a vacuum; they are embedded in histories, narratives, and rhetorical frames that shape public perception and political legitimacy. One Nation’s immigration discourse is suffused with racialised imagery and selective appeals to cultural threat that trace back to long-standing strains in Australian politics. To evaluate the party’s proposals is therefore to interrogate not only their technical merits but the ideological soil from which they grow.
The historical context is instructive. Debates about immigration in Australia have been shaped by the legacy of the White Australia policy, which sought to preserve Anglo-Celtic cultural dominance through restrictive immigration settings. While formal legal segregation ended in the mid-20th century, residues of racialised thinking persisted in political rhetoric and public attitudes. One Nation’s rhetoric often taps into those residues by depicting certain migrants as undesirable, economically exploitative, or culturally incompatible. Such portrayals are not simply policy disagreements; they signal a vision of national belonging tied to ethnicity and cultural homogeneity.
The language used in public pronouncements and campaign materials is critical. Framing migrants as “illegal” in broad, undifferentiated terms obscures the heterogeneity of people who lack formal current visas, lumping asylum seekers, overstayers with compelling personal circumstances, and workers who may have been misclassified by intermediaries into a single scapegoated category. Similarly, references to “visa rorts” and “cheap foreign labour” can code economic grievances in racialised terms when accompanied by imagery or examples that disproportionately highlight migrants from particular regions. This coding matters because it channels economic frustration into ethnic or cultural resentment instead of directing it toward structural policy failures or exploitative business practices.
High-profile statements and campaign milestones have amplified these themes. When political leaders use culturally inflammatory language – whether about being “swamped” by people of certain backgrounds or portraying particular faiths as incompatible with national values – they legitimate exclusionary attitudes and create political space for policies rooted in exclusion rather than integration. This rhetoric does not operate in a vacuum; it shapes mainstream discourse, making certain ideas about immigration appear acceptable when, in fact, they rest on unexamined prejudices.
The consequences of racialised policy frames extend beyond discourse. They influence law enforcement practices, labour market treatment, and everyday social interactions. Racialised scapegoating fosters an environment in which discrimination, harassment, and selective enforcement are more likely. It can also distract from core drivers of inequality – such as wage concentration, housing policy, and the political economy of capital – by locating blame on visible, socially vulnerable groups rather than entrenched structural power.
It is also important to note the selective use of economic evidence. One Nation’s proposals often ignore or downplay the economic contributions of migrants from particular regions – including high-skilled migrants from Asian countries – even when data show strong fiscal and innovation benefits from such cohorts. This selective attention signals an underlying preference for exclusionary ends dressed in ostensibly economic clothing. When economic arguments are marshalled selectively, they serve rhetorical ends more than evidentiary ones.
Public opinion dynamics are relevant to this analysis. Populist appeals that link immigration to cultural threat resonate in circumstances of economic insecurity and social change. However, public concern about immigration often conflates distinct issues: illegal entry, the adequacy of infrastructure, the availability of affordable housing, and the fairness of labour markets. When political actors channel these concerns into racialised narratives, they not only simplify complex problems but also exacerbate social divisions.
Conclusion
One Nation’s immigration platform purports to address tangible and legitimate public concerns – housing affordability, wage stagnation, service pressures – but its proposed remedies rest on a series of conceptual simplifications, administrative impracticalities, and, crucially, rhetorical and ideological frames that are racially tinged. Empirical evidence suggests that migration, when managed with attention to labour market needs, educational strategy, and regional development, contributes positively to GDP, innovation, and fiscal sustainability. The party’s proposals often fail to account for these dynamics, instead presenting immigration as a straightforward threat amenable to blunt exclusionary remedies.
The implementation of mass deportations, blanket visa caps, and protracted exclusionary measures would confront formidable legal, logistical, and fiscal hurdles. They would risk damaging sectors that depend on migrant labour and students, and they would almost certainly prompt legal challenges and international criticism. Moreover, when immigration policy is crafted and communicated through a lens that emphasises cultural threat and uses racially coded language, it risks entrenching division and legitimising discriminatory attitudes.
This critique is not an argument for unchecked migration; it is an analysis of the assertions, assumptions, and likely consequences of a specific political program. A robust public policy debate requires clear-eyed engagement with evidence, candid recognition of trade-offs, and careful assessment of administrative capacity and legal obligations. That debate should also recognise the ethical dimensions of migration policy – how decisions affect vulnerable people, how rhetoric shapes social cohesion, and how the polity balances national interests with humanitarian commitments.
In sum, the immigration agenda advocated by One Nation reflects a conflation of political theatrics with policy prescriptions that are, on multiple grounds, naive, unworkable, and underpinned by racialised framings. Public discussion of these issues would benefit from moving beyond polarising soundbites to substantive inquiry about the structural causes of the problems invoked and the realistic consequences of proposed remedies. Only by interrogating both the factual claims and the moral impulses that animate such policies can the quality of national conversation on immigration be improved.
