The surprising aspect of One Nation's new immigration policy is not its extreme ideas, but that parts of it warrant serious discussion. The party's pledge to regulate the size and composition of the temporary migrant population is a notable proposal, as it directly addresses issues such as poor planning, integration obstacles, and migrant worker exploitation.
Why Temporary Migration is the Right Target
The temporary migrant population is feasible to contain because its size is determined by two flows a government can control: the net intake of people on temporary visas and the number who convert to permanent status. If these flows are kept equal, the temporary population stabilises, which is a mathematical fact, not a theory or forecast.
Recent political debate has focused on net overseas migration (Nom), the difference between migrant arrivals and departures. However, Nom provides a rough measure of all migration, and claiming Nom is the problem supports the false conclusion that all migration is problematic. Some parts, such as movements of Australian citizens, cannot and should not be regulated, while permanent migration is already well regulated. Temporary migration, deregulated 25 years ago, now needs reviewing.
Regulating Temporary Migration: A Feasible Path
Regulating temporary migration involves controlling how many temporary migrants arrive, how long they stay, how many leave, and how many become permanent residents. This is possible under existing legislation, but the political consensus on its desirability is shifting. Following Canada's lead in regulating the temporary migrant population could help Australia avoid problems of previous "guest worker" programs, and One Nation deserves credit for putting this on the table.
Beyond this, however, the policy jumps from real problems to blunt, kneejerk cuts that would do more harm than good. One Nation proposes reducing the temporary migrant population by 750,000 over three years by pushing net overseas migration into negative territory. This is extraordinarily radical, and Australia tried it recently during the Covid border closure, with disastrous results: businesses failed, the economy contracted sharply, and governments spent massively to cushion the shock. Deliberately recreating that outcome makes little sense.
Punitive Measures and Racial Dimensions
One Nation's approach to departures is also too punitive. While Australia has the right to enforce its immigration laws, a three-month deadline backed by aggressive enforcement and lifetime re-entry bans raises questions about proportionality and due process. Families, children, long residence, and legal processes make cases more complicated than a blanket rule allows. A migration system must be enforceable, fair, and humane, requiring a mix of conversion to permanence for some, extended temporariness for others, and incentives to depart for a few. The objective should be harm minimisation, not an arbitrary net migration target.
There is also a racial dimension that cannot be ignored. One Nation has a long history of framing migration through racial and cultural division, and blaming particular ethnic or religious communities for housing shortages, pressure on services, falling living standards, crime, or security threats is analytically weak and socially corrosive. There is a crucial distinction between debating migration policy and blaming migrants.
A Better Path Forward
A better policy would stabilise the system after Covid and tackle the long-term imbalance between permanent and temporary migration, both requiring governing the temporary population deliberately. Australia should collectively decide how large it should be, what purposes it serves, and where pathways should end. People should either leave when their temporary purpose has ended or have a realistic pathway to permanence if Australia's need and their connection have become permanent.
Australia once led the world in migration research and policymaking, but that capability has eroded. It needs an independent national migration research institute to produce authoritative data, model competing proposals, and test political claims against evidence. Migration is too important to be governed by slogans, arbitrary numbers, or scapegoats. If Australia wants a system that commands public confidence, it needs a better-informed debate about what migration is for and how it should be governed, according to Alan Gamlen, a professor at the School of Regulation and Global Governance at the Australian National University and director of the ANU Migration Hub.
