One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has intensified calls for a significant reduction in Australia’s immigration intake, arguing that the current flow of migrants includes low-skilled workers such as Uber drivers, nail technicians, and dog walkers whose presence strains infrastructure and housing. Hanson proposes cutting permanent migration to 130,000 people per year, a sharp decline from the government’s forecast of 185,000 for 2026-27 and well below the net overseas migration figure of 306,000 recorded in 2024-25.
Hanson has criticized Australia's current immigration system, emphasizing what she describes as a large number of undocumented residents — estimating between 75,000 and 100,000 people living illegally in the country. She has called for stricter enforcement, including tighter restrictions on foreign students and their families, asserting that the purpose of student visas should be limited to education without accompanying family migration. Hanson linked Australia’s infrastructure challenges and high numbers of bridging visa holders, currently around 432,000, to what she sees as government laxity.
Her stance has stirred a range of responses from industry leaders who warn that abrupt changes to migration policy could have negative economic consequences. The Minerals Council of Australia, represented by chief executive Tania Constable, voiced strong concerns over the government’s recent move to deprioritize skilled migration, a shift initially expected to be outlined in a speech by Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke that was postponed at short notice. Constable said prioritizing migration changes without proper industry consultation could exacerbate critical labour shortages, especially for highly specialized roles including mining engineers, geologists, and electricians. She added that such gaps risk delaying projects, reducing export earnings, and weakening economic resilience in sectors vital to Australia’s growth, such as mining, clean energy, defence, advanced manufacturing, and cybersecurity.
Other business voices echoed similar reservations, urging caution against “radical” policy shifts. The Australian Chamber of Commerce’s Andrew McKellar cautioned that sudden migration caps or adjustments to family visa arrangements could inadvertently disrupt the economy. Innes Willox from the Australian Industry Group stressed that curtailing family reunion options for skilled migrants could undermine Australia’s competitiveness in the global battle for talent.
Despite these warnings, Hanson dismissed concerns about economic impact, stating that her priority is improving living standards for Australians struggling with housing affordability and quality of life. She expressed indifference to how businesses or universities might react to reduced migration levels, emphasizing the need to focus on migrants who contribute positively and wish to integrate fully into Australian society.
Minister Tony Burke’s planned announcement, reportedly focused on measures to prevent exceeding migration targets rather than drastically cutting them, was postponed due to unresolved cabinet discussions amid rising public and political pressure. Hanson suggested the government’s hesitation reflects fear of losing support to One Nation and similar parties advocating for tighter migration controls.
The debate highlights ongoing tensions in Australian migration policy, balancing economic demands for skilled labour against public concerns over population growth and resource allocation.