One Nation Can't Settle on a Migration Number — and It's Their Signature Issue

One Nation MP David Farley said on August 23, 2026 that the party's net overseas migration target would be "not too different" from Labor's, prompting Pauline Hanson to publicly override her own parliamentarian and restate a figure of 130,000 (SMH).

Hanson described the 130,000 cap as "less than half" the government's plan in a video posted the same day (YouTube). The intervention came after Farley, asked whether a net overseas migration rate of 306,000 was too many, replied "No, it's probably not" in April 2026. He corrected himself a month later on social media, saying 306,000 was "way too many" and that One Nation would cap immigration at 130,000 (Guardian).

Net overseas migration (NOM) is the measure most politicians and economists use when they talk about migration targets. It counts people arriving minus people leaving, whether they're coming on permanent visas, student visas, or work visas. It's different from the permanent migration program, which is a separate annual intake capped by the government. The confusion between these two measures is part of why One Nation's numbers keep shifting.

The Farley stumble is not an isolated incident. It is the latest in an 18-month pattern in which One Nation has cycled through at least five different iterations of its immigration stance, sometimes within weeks of each other.

Before 2025, the party's official website policy supported zero net migration, admitting only highly skilled migrants from "culturally cohesive countries." In early 2025, the site was updated to a visa cap of 130,000 per year, without specifying whether that figure referred to permanent migration or net overseas migration. In March 2025, Senator Malcolm Roberts told the Senate the policy would produce negative net immigration of 90,000 a year, allowing 130,000 entrants against roughly 220,000 departures (Guardian; Hansard).

By August 2025, Hanson was singing a different tune in a late-night Senate adjournment speech. She said the cap would be "approximately 130,000 per year" but that numbers could increase over time once the country could accommodate them. Three months later, NSW Senator Sean Bell proposed something else again: a net zero migration policy, equalising arrivals and departures, for five years, spoken in support of a private member's bill for a plebiscite on immigration (Guardian; Hansard).

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

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

Meanwhile, the party's homepage continues to promote the slogan "Stop Importing Security Risks Into Australia," with Hanson tying tighter migration to national security (One Nation). The dissonance between that hardline framing and the inability to settle on a number is striking. A party that built its brand on immigration restrictionism, now holding seats in both chambers, cannot tell voters what its actual target would be if it held the balance of power.

The broader context here matters for the competitive landscape on the right. In February 2026, newly elected opposition leader Angus Taylor said he wanted to stop "bad immigration" but insisted the Liberals were "not One Nation lite" (Guardian). The following month, reporting on new Nationals leader Matt Canavan noted that his 15-year alliance with Barnaby Joyce could help the Nationals fight off One Nation's encroachment into regional seats (Guardian).

Both major Coalition parties are explicitly positioning against One Nation's brand. The Liberals are trying to draw a line. The Nationals are looking to push back in the regions. And One Nation, the party they're trying to contain, can't keep its own senate team on the same page about a core issue for 48 hours at a stretch.

The political problem is straightforward. Immigration is One Nation's signature issue. It is the one area where the party claims a clear point of difference from the major parties. When Farley concedes the party's target might be "not too different" from Labor's, and Hanson has to scramble to reassert the 130,000 figure, the differential collapses. If One Nation's migration number looks like it could land within cooee of the government's, the rationale for voting for the party on this issue weakens considerably. And if the party can't maintain internal discipline on its founding policy, voters are entitled to ask what exactly they would get.