One Nation Keeps Changing Its Mind on Immigration

One Nation MP David Farley said on August 23, 2026 that his party's immigration target would be "not too different" from Labor's. Pauline Hanson, the party's leader, publicly overrode him the same day and said the real number was 130,000 (SMH).

Hanson called the 130,000 cap "less than half" the government's plan in a video posted that day (YouTube). The reason she had to step in was that Farley had said something different months earlier. Back in April 2026, when asked whether a migration figure of 306,000 was too many, he replied "No, it's probably not." A month later he changed his tune on social media, saying 306,000 was "way too many" and that One Nation would cap immigration at 130,000 (Guardian).

When politicians talk about migration targets, they usually mean "net overseas migration." That's the number of people who move to Australia in a year minus the number who leave. It's different from the permanent migration program, which is a separate yearly intake the government caps. Part of the confusion around One Nation's numbers comes from not being clear which measure they're talking about.

The Farley stumble is not a one-off. Over the past 18 months, One Nation has gone through at least five different versions of its immigration policy, sometimes just weeks apart.

Before 2025, the party's website supported zero net migration, letting in only highly skilled migrants from "culturally cohesive countries." In early 2025, the site was updated to a cap of 130,000 per year, without saying whether that meant permanent migration or net overseas migration. In March 2025, Senator Malcolm Roberts told the Senate the policy would actually produce negative migration of 90,000 a year, meaning 130,000 people coming in but about 220,000 leaving (Guardian; Hansard).

By August 2025, Hanson was saying something else in a late-night Senate speech. She said the cap would be "approximately 130,000 per year" but that numbers could go up over time once the country could handle them. Three months later, NSW Senator Sean Bell proposed yet another idea: five years of net zero migration, where arrivals and departures cancel each other out. He said this in support of a push for a public vote on immigration (Guardian; Hansard).

Roberts shifted again in March 2026, posting on social media that the policy was "guided by negative net immigration until housing and infrastructure catch up" (Guardian; X).

So the list goes: zero net migration, then 130,000, then negative 90,000, then 130,000 with room to grow, then five years of net zero, then negative migration until infrastructure catches up, then 130,000 again, then "not too different" from Labor, then 130,000 one more time. The Guardian described the party as "all over the shop" on migration targets on August 24, 2026 (Guardian).

Meanwhile, the party's website still promotes the slogan "Stop Importing Security Risks Into Australia," with Hanson linking tighter migration to national security (One Nation). The gap between that tough talk and the inability to settle on a single number is striking. A party that built its name on cutting immigration, now with seats in both the House of Reps and the Senate, cannot tell voters what its target would actually be if it had the power to set one.

The broader context here is the battle on the right of politics. In February 2026, new opposition leader Angus Taylor said he wanted to stop "bad immigration" but insisted the Liberals were "not One Nation lite" (Guardian). The next month, reporting on new Nationals leader Matt Canavan noted that his long alliance with Barnaby Joyce could help the Nationals fight off One Nation in regional seats (Guardian).

Both Coalition parties are pushing back against One Nation. The Liberals are trying to draw a line. The Nationals are fighting for the regions. And One Nation, the party they're trying to contain, can't keep its own team agreeing on a core issue for 48 hours straight.

The political problem is simple. Immigration is One Nation's main issue. It's the one thing the party says sets it apart from the major parties. When Farley admits the target might be "not too different" from Labor's, and Hanson has to rush in to say no, it's 130,000, that point of difference disappears. If One Nation's migration number ends up anywhere near the government's, the reason to vote One Nation on this issue falls away. And if the party can't keep its own MPs in line on the policy it was built around, voters have a right to ask what they'd actually be getting.