One Nation Said It Would Cut Migration. Then Its Own MP Said the Opposite on TV.

One Nation's newest MP, David Farley, has been publicly corrected by his own party after going on ABC's Insiders and saying One Nation's migration target was "not too different" from Labor's. It took about 48 hours for the party to walk the comments back, and the Coalition got a free kick out of it.

Farley, who won the seat of Farrer for Pauline Hanson's One Nation in May 2026, told Insiders on 23 August that One Nation's migration target was 130,000 people a year. But he also said the party would allow at least 100,000 more migrant workers — skilled workers, backpackers, and workers from Pacific nations and Timor-Leste through a scheme called Palm. Add it all up and Farley was saying One Nation would not cut migration below about 230,000 a year (ABC News). That total of 230,000 is actually slightly more than the Albanese government's own forecast of 225,000 by 2027-28 (The Guardian).

That is the problem. A party built on the promise of cutting migration had just admitted its intake would be higher than Labor's.

Pauline Hanson moved fast. On Sunday she said One Nation's migration target was 130,000, full stop. She posted on social media that "One Nation's policy is to cut net overseas migration to 130,000" and pointed out that short-term seasonal farm workers do not count in the official migration figures. On Monday, Barnaby Joyce — One Nation's colleague in the Senate — went on Channel 7's Sunrise to say a mistake had been made and there would not be an extra 100,000 on top of the 130,000 target (The Guardian).

Joyce called it a rookie mistake and said Farley had misspoken. He said the gaffe was "not unusual" (ABC News).

This is not the first time Farley has stumbled on this issue. During the Farrer byelection campaign, Hanson personally pulled him aside after he said a migration figure of 306,000 the previous year was "probably not" too many (The Guardian). One Nation had also clarified last week that its plan to cap visas was based on a target of 130,000 a year (SMH).

The technical detail matters here. "Net overseas migration" is the official way Australia counts how many people are actually moving here to stay. The Australian Bureau of Statistics counts anyone who has been in or out of the country for 12 months within a 16-month window. It includes Australians moving abroad and coming back, but it leaves out short-term visitors like tourists. It is different from the permanent migration program, which is the number of long-term visas the government hands out for skilled workers and family members — set at 185,000 for this financial year. You can think of it like this: the permanent migration program is the list of visas the government issues; net overseas migration is the actual headcount of who is living in Australia long enough to count. Net overseas migration was expected to fall to 295,000 last financial year but reached 301,000. The government forecasts it to drop to 245,000 in 2026-27 and 225,000 in 2027-28 (The Guardian).

Hanson's correction is technically right in one sense: Palm scheme workers on short-term visas may not count in the official migration figures. But Farley muddied that on Insiders by rolling the 100,000 into a single headline number that placed One Nation above Labor. That is what made the walk-back necessary and what gave the Coalition its opening.

Shadow defence minister James Paterson said Farley's comments showed One Nation was "all over the shop when it comes to migration" and called the party "not fit to govern" (The Guardian). That is a strong line from a Coalition frontbencher. "Not fit to govern" is the kind of language you usually hear in Parliament, not on a breakfast TV segment.

The timing is awkward. A Demos poll released on Monday showed One Nation's primary vote slipping behind the Coalition by one percentage point to 24%, with Labor at 26%. One Nation has been polling well enough to force the Coalition to fight for the same conservative voters. A migration gaffe on the one issue the party is known for is exactly the kind of self-inflicted wound that narrows that gap.

The broader context here is about discipline and whether One Nation can hold a consistent line on the single issue that defines it. Farley has now misspoken on migration numbers at least twice in three months. Hanson has corrected him twice. Joyce is doing the morning-television cleanup. The party's policy may well be what Hanson says it is — a 130,000 cap with short-term workers excluded from the count. But when your own MP goes on national television and describes a combined intake that exceeds Labor's, the headline writes itself, and no amount of after-the-fact clarification can un-ring that bell.

For a party whose whole pitch is that it will cut migration harder than anyone else, having to publicly insist that its real number is lower than what its own MP just said on Insiders is an awkward look. The question for One Nation is whether this is teething trouble from a first-term MP still learning the ropes, or a sign that the party's internal process has not kept pace with its electoral success. Either way, the Coalition will make sure voters hear about it.