Trumpism, but make it Australian: One Nation’s migration fantasy

By borrowing Trump’s rhetoric while ignoring Australian law, One Nation offers fear, fantasy and cruelty in place of workable migration policy, writes Dr Abul Rizvi.

WITH ONE NATION resurgent in the polls, Mike Seccombe for The Saturday Paper talked to Pauline Hanson’s chief of staff, James Ashby. Not surprisingly, after the Bondi massacre, Ashby focused on ending migration from Muslim nations.

Whilst he wasn’t specific about which nations, he said:

“The Trump list is a very, very good and clear list that other countries like Australia should be looking at.”

The Trump list of 75 nations from which visa processing has been suspended does not include India, which is where the older of the two Bondi terrorists was from, with the son having been born in Australia.

Barnaby Joyce defects to One Nation — baggage included

Barnaby Joyce has joined One Nation, continuing a political career defined by betrayal, ambition and self-interest.

The cessation of visa processing from 75 nations by the USA (including non-Muslim majority nations such as Nepal and Fiji) was by Executive Order signed by President Trump. While it is not clear if the Order made by the President is legal (it will be challenged in the courts), Australia’s migration system operates on the basis of the Migration Act from which the Minister for Immigration derives his/her power.

Australia’s Migration Act does not include a power to cease visa processing from selected nations. There is power to suspend visa processing for certain classes of visas (s85), but that power does not extend to specifying nations from which visa processing could be suspended. That would be contrary to the non-discriminatory nature of Australia’s migration policy. The Act would need to be amended to provide that power, which itself would then likely be contrary to the Racial Discrimination Act.

It is also notable that s116 of Australia’s Constitution prohibits the Government from making any laws that discriminate between different religions.

Ashby justifies One Nation’s anti-Muslim policy on the basis of the following:

“We certainly know that Islamic terrorism is being allowed into the country because we’re doing proper vetting on the backgrounds of some of these people. Extremism is alive and well. We know that, because ASIO had at least 200 people on their terrorism watchlist and guess what? They all come from the same ideology, the same hateful religious ideology that is bred in certain countries around the globe.”

The 200+ people Ashby refers to aren’t confined to Muslims as he alleges. Reports in the Murdoch Press say 35 per cent of the 200+ were ‘religiously motivated’. Another 40 per cent were ‘ideologically motivated’. The latter group would include neo-Nazis, White supremacists and sovereign citizens, many of whom may be inclined to vote for One Nation given its policies.

A large portion of the 200+ would have been born in Australia. The vast majority would be Australian citizens rather than on visas. If they were on visas, the Government would by now have moved to cancel their visas using existing provisions of s501 of the Migration Act.

How racism is shaping Australia’s migration debate

Australia’s cost-of-living crisis isn’t caused by migrants and scapegoating is making it worse.

Ashby expresses concerns about inadequate vetting, but, like Trump, provides no evidence to support where the vetting has been inadequate. He may or may not know that visa refusal rates for nations in the Middle East and North Africa are significantly higher than for nations in most other parts of the world. We do not know how much of that is due to security concerns or other factors.

But if One Nation is concerned about inadequate vetting or that the Government is not cancelling visas of people on ASIO’s watchlist, why would it have opposed the recent Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill? One of the specific purposes of the Bill is to enable the Government to more readily refuse or cancel visas for members of specified hate groups. That would seem to be exactly the kind of “proper vetting” Ashby is referring to?

There are two hate groups that have been discussed in the media for possible listing. Hizb ut-Tahrir and various neo-Nazi groups. Did One Nation oppose the Bill because it was concerned about the possible listing of neo-Nazi groups, or that much of One Nation's language and actions, especially at anti-immigration marches, which are also attended by neo-Nazis, could be construed as hate speech?

Migration levels

On immigration levels, Ashby is reported to have said One Nation wants to halve the overall intake to 130,000. Presumably, he is referring to net migration, which in 2025-26 is forecast by Treasury at 260,000.

But Ashby also says:

“Effectively, 130,000 just merely replaces the people we’re losing — net zero, although I hate using that term.”

It’s not clear what Ashby means by “replaces the people we’re losing”. Does he mean deaths, which in 2024-25 were 185,700? Unlikely. Does he mean net migration departures, which in 2024-25 were 262,800? Again unlikely.

Does Ashby mean natural increase, which in 2024-25 was 114,556? But he couldn’t be referring to natural increase as that plus net migration of 130,000 gives a population increase of around 245,000 — not “net zero”. Does he think the natural increase in Australia is negative, as it is in many developed nations?

No entry, no growth: Australia’s immigration pause illusion

Halting migration might sound like a quick fix to Australia’s housing and economic woes, but the real outcome would be stalled growth, lost jobs and rising costs across the nation.

One Nation’s website refers to capping visas to 130,000 per annum. No explanation is provided on what types of visas will be capped. The Australian Government issues well over half a million visas each month, so it’s unlikely One Nation is referring to capping all visas at 130,000.

I suspect that, despite the One Nation Party raving on about immigration for decades, they actually have no idea what they are talking about (and really don’t care) as long as their followers hear the anti-immigration and the anti-Muslim message.

Mass deportation

The top priority on One Nation’s list of immigration policies is mass deportation.

The website states that a One Nation government would:

‘Deport 75,000 illegal migrants because Australia’s immigration laws must be enforced, not ignored.’

Immigration compliance and deportation is an essential part of any efficient visa system. I was surprised when Peter Dutton and his Secretary Mike Pezzullo emasculated the immigration compliance function. The Labor Government has restored some of the immigration compliance resources Dutton and Pezzullo cut away.

Much more needs to be done in this area. But that requires clear and deliverable objectives, careful planning, highly trained compliance officers, expanded detention facilities, lawful decision-making and a very significant increase in resources. There is little evidence Hanson understands what is involved. She may be eyeing the chaos of Trump’s mass deportation policy with envy.

Indeed, her website states:

‘Want Trump’s action and style, then it’s One Nation you need.’

As Australians learn more about the disasters and deaths Trump is presiding over with his militaristic mass deportation policy, they may be less enthusiastic about Hanson’s mass deportation rhetoric.

Dr Abul Rizvi is an Independent Australia columnist and a former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Immigration. You can follow Abul on Twitter @RizviAbul.