Pauline Hanson Wants to Cut Migration by 750,000. Why Experts Say It Will Cost Billions

Pauline Hanson wants to cut temporary migrants in Australia by more than 750,000 over three years. That is the main point of the One Nation plan now being questioned in Canberra, after former senior immigration official Abul Rizvi said just enforcing it would cost the budget "many, many billions" The Guardian.

The cut would hit international students and family members of skilled migrants. These are the two groups Hanson has named. Hanson claimed the plan would reset the immigration system and ease pressure on housing The Guardian.

The plan aims to lower the total number of people here at once, not just the number let in each year. So it means fewer new visas, plus many visas not renewed and removals on a large scale.

One Nation has promised net-negative migration One Nation. That is the current policy wording. Hanson had earlier named a net migration target of 130,000, in comments reported on 22 August ABC. Net-negative means more people leaving Australia than arriving over a period. That is stricter than a normal positive target.

Under the plan, unlawful non-citizens, people with no valid visa, would get three months to leave on their own before enforcement starts. There would be no general amnesty, no free pass for all. Anyone who stayed would face enforcement action and be banned for life from returning.

One Nation bases its plan on 80,000 unlawful non-citizens. Home Affairs figures from July count a different but related group of 110,898 people refused a protection visa and still to be deported. That group includes people on bridging visas and people waiting for a court or tribunal decision. A bridging visa lets someone stay legally while they wait. These groups are not the same, and the law treats them differently. They do not have the same appeal rights or the same chance of removal.

Anyone who overstays a visa by more than one month would get an automatic three-year ban. Anyone who overstays by six months or more would be banned for life. Rizvi compared the plan to Donald Trump's enforcement effort in the United States, which has a budget of US$170bn.

The broader context here is what mass removal takes. It needs detention beds, charter flights with escorts, lawyers and court time, more compliance staff, and help from other countries. Costs climb when fewer people go willingly and most cases are disputed. Willing departures depend on clear incentives, travel papers, help from home countries, and trust about what happens next. If people still have appeals or protection claims to be decided, they cannot just be put on a plane. Each file must be checked, decisions must hold up on appeal, and travel papers must be found.

In my view, the overstay ban leaves almost no room to look at why someone overstayed, their past record, or whether they should get a visa later. The housing promise faces the same problem. The claim is that fewer migrants means less housing pressure. Rizvi points to pressure elsewhere, on the Budget and on Home Affairs. Canberra has heard talk of quick mass removals before. It usually runs into tribunal queues, the courts, and slow talks to get home countries to accept returns. That does not make it impossible. It makes it costly and slow.

Looking at what this means for voters, a few basic questions are still unanswered. How much of the 750,000 comes from students, family members and other groups in each year. How many of the unlawful group can actually be removed in three years once legal bridging and appeal cases are taken out. How many extra staff and detention places are budgeted, and over what future budgets. Until One Nation releases that detail, "many, many billions" is a warning, not a rival costing. But it comes from someone who used to run the system.