What Hanson should be asked at the National Press Club

As Pauline Hanson's National Press Club appearance nears, former Immigration Department Deputy Secretary Dr Abul Rizvi prepares a list of questions she has yet to answer on her signature immigration policies.

Pauline Hanson has agreed to speak at the National Press Club on 17 June. She may be forced to deal with difficult questions rather than the usual self-serving fluff put to her on Sky After Dark. But which questions?

As she has few detailed policies, Hanson may be able to get away with the usual delay tactics. But on her signature immigration policies for which she is best known, that may be more difficult.

Below are the questions I would ask Pauline Hanson about her immigration policies.

How the media legitimise Barnaby and Pauline's PHONies

Why do the establishment media continue to legitimise politicians like One Nation's Pauline Hanson and Barnaby Joyce? Managing editor Michelle Pini analyses the media's obsession with the PHONies.

Immigration levels

Hanson has given many different responses to questions on One Nation’s policy on immigration levels. That she wants to reduce immigration is undeniable. But to what level and how?

Question 1

The One Nation website states that you will 'cut immigration by over 570,000 people from current Labor levels by capping visas at 130,000 per year'. In an interview with The Noticer, you said “immigrant arrivals would be capped at 130,000 per year under One Nation, resulting in net overseas migration of -100,000”.

As you would know, immigrant arrivals and visas are very different things. Can you clarify your target firstly, for net overseas migration and secondly, for permanent migration? Also, what would you cut and by how much, to get to these two targets?

Question 2

How would you "cap" immigrant arrivals, given we cannot be certain if someone is an immigrant arrival until 12 months after they have been in Australia? The Migration Act does not currently have the power to "cap" net migration arrivals. Would you be seeking such a power, and have you sought legal and policy advice on how such a power would work?

Mass deportation

Question 3

Your website states you will deport 75,000 illegal migrants in an echo of policies being pursued by the Trump Administration.

To date, the Trump Administration has allocated US$170 billion (AU$241 billion) to the Department of Homeland Security, mostly for the mass deportation program and is now seeking an additional US$70 billion (AU$99 billion) to continue that program. It is likely the Trump Administration will seek a similar amount for its mass deportation program in years three and four of Trump’s Presidency.

To date in the U.S., there has been a modest increase in deportations from the interior compared to past administrations, but also a large increase in arrests, and people detained and now going through the immigration courts. Many people, including U.S. citizens, have been wrongfully detained and some wrongfully deported, who will sue the U.S. Government now that they have been repatriated. Some people, including U.S. citizens, have been killed by immigration agents in the process.

What have you learned from the experience of the Trump Administration? How would you avoid similar problems, and do you have an estimate of the cost and a timeframe for your mass deportation policy, including the massive expansion in detention facilities that would be required?

The regional visa dilemma facing Pauline Hanson

Pauline Hanson's biggest problem is that regional Australia depends on the migration she opposes.

Banning migration from Muslim-majority nations

Question 4

You have said you would ban migration from Muslim-majority nations.

Have you sought legal advice on whether such a ban would be consistent with s116 of the Constitution that bans the Government from making laws in relation to religion? Have you sought legal advice on whether you would need to amend the Racial Discrimination Act and the Migration Act to enable such a ban?

Question 5

Two of our nearest neighbours, Indonesia and Malaysia, are Muslim-majority nations. Would you ban migration from these two nations?

As you would know, we have very extensive law enforcement, people smuggling and defence agreements with Indonesia. We also have a trade agreement with Indonesia that enables around 99 per cent of Australian goods and services to enter Indonesia duty-free. Australia’s exports to Indonesia have grown rapidly and in 2025 totalled over $7 billion, including cereals, meat, cotton, aluminium, steel and various minerals.

Are you concerned about the impact of a ban on migration from Indonesia on the bilateral relationship?

Withdrawal from the Refugee Convention

Question 6

You have long been antagonistic to the UN and its various bodies, despite Australia being one of the instigators of its creation and the importance of the UN to a middle power such as Australia. Your website says you would withdraw Australia from the Refugee Convention.

Do you see such a withdrawal as purely symbolic, or would you send refugees back to situations where they may be persecuted, tortured and possibly even executed? Do you think Australians would support that?

PALM Visa

Question 7

The Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) visa is one of the few visas you have said you would retain. Evidence to senate committees has highlighted the extraordinary level to which these workers are exploited by employers and labour hire companies. The PALM visa has by far the highest rates of injury and death of any Australian visa, as well as huge numbers absconding and applying for asylum. Thousands of them have now become undocumented.

These are common characteristics of low-skill agriculture visas around the world, including in the USA and Europe. Given these facts, why have you singled out this visa to be retained?

One Nation’s immigration policies: Confusion, copycats and costly myths

A closer look at One Nation’s immigration platform reveals policy confusion, borrowed Trumpian slogans and proposals that collapse under basic scrutiny.

Partner visas

Question 8

There is currently a backlog of around 120,000 partner visa applications. These are partners of Australians seeking to live together in Australia. Around 65,000 new partner applications are received each year, but with only 41,000 places, the backlog just keeps growing.

The Migration Act requires these visas to be managed on a demand-driven basis. That is clearly not the case. The Government is in breach of Australian law.

How would a One Nation Government address this situation? Would you clear the backlog and abide by Australian law, and if so, how would that fit with your reduced migration target?

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