Hanson’s migration plan is sloppy, but Albanese has missed the moment

The haphazard method by which One Nation landed its plan to temporarily lower the population through migration has added to doubts about its ability to run the country.

That doesn’t change the fact that Pauline Hanson’s plan for more departures than arrivals is a paradigm shift in the debate.

Labor stuffed up tactically in early August when Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke’s speech announcing an immigration crackdown was canned at the last minute.

That rare blunder became a broader strategic muddle as Labor’s internal divisions were exposed. Delays allowed vested interests to lobby for keeping strong flows of students and low-wage workers.

The void was filled by Hanson, who can move quickly because her party doesn’t bother with forecasts on the economic consequences major parties claim will be substantial.

Instead of landing on a compelling argument to convince voters that migration was working in the interests of Australians, not the other way around, Albanese has been making rote appeals to the diversity-as-strength mantra. A more substantive pivot was required for progressives to prove they had responsible solutions to what polls show is mainstream concern about migration.

The Hanson plan to cut by 750,000 Australia’s stock of 3 million temporary visas taps into a groundswell of community anxiety. Liberal migration policies are being wound back in many nations – Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Japan and Canada. Hanson cited centre-left Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s crackdown on international students. Right- and left-wing leaders in these nations have judged that migration rates are hurting them.

It’s not discussed much, but Hanson’s move also reflects elite bureaucratic opinion. Among other policy hardheads, former bureaucrat Martin Parkinson said migration had turned into a quasi-guest worker scheme that might be hurting productivity.

Former Labor adviser Henry Sherrell said last month that “a few tweaks” weren’t enough for Labor and that “keeping our hands in the sand” would fuel populism.

Business groups and Labor premiers have been warning the anti-migration sentiment could lead to economic carnage.

Enter Hanson and her killer line: “A larger economy on paper means nothing if Australians are poorer per person and cannot afford a home, find a hospital bed or get ahead.”

After years of anaemic growth and a 5 per cent drop in real wages since 2021, it’s a potent and plausible argument.

But the way One Nation landed its policy would be funny if it wasn’t so consequential.

Before Barnaby Joyce joined the party, One Nation’s website talked about capping the number of visas issued each year at 130,000. With more than that number departing, that would have led to net negative migration.

Joyce viewed this as untenable because the conventional wisdom is that migration must grow the population to boost the economy and fertility. Joyce’s concern led to a backflip: the party decided to claim, misleadingly, that the 130,000 figure was always a net figure, as in arrivals minus departures.

A deleted tweet caught Hanson in the deception. One Nation’s network of online supporters revolted. They created significant online momentum casting Hanson as weak for abandoning the concept of net negative inflows, which hasn’t been proposed by many outside of fringe greenies and hard-right ethno-nationalists.

That changed as a result of the online backlash and a viral article from a former productivity commission economist in the Australian Financial Review. The piece said the government “should run down the stock of temporary workers [and] pursue negative net overseas migration for several years”.

Eleven days after that article, shared widely among policy types and persuasive in parts, Joyce’s problem with negative migration was thrown aside.

“Over the three years net overseas migration will be net-negative,” One Nation said.

By how much will migration be in the negative? These and other important questions were left unanswered despite commentators on the right rushing to applaud the supposed policy rigour.

“No” is the simple answer given by Mike Pezzullo, the former home affairs secretary, when asked if One Nation’s plan was workable.

“There’s the appearance of policy sophistication, and maybe they think that’s enough, but it’s not actual sophistication,” said Pezzullo. He supports a cut of about 500,000 rather than 750,000.

Hanson’s numbers rely on the assumption that about 80,000 unlawful non-citizens will be quickly deported next year, a heroic task experts say would cost dearly to achieve. It also cuts partner visas for temporary workers to precisely zero, which Pezzullo said could stop many talented migrants coming.

“Until this modelling is done, nobody should touch this with a barge pole,” he said, warning of labour shortages. “You could have some very significant impacts on the economy.”

Meanwhile, Albanese’s modest but meaningful proposals to cut back on visa-hopping and bogus asylum is unlikely to win the Coalition’s support.

Angus Taylor, the actual opposition leader, is fearful of being labelled weak by Hanson and can only dream of releasing policies as quickly as the nimble populists. A compromise with Labor is unlikely, and Albanese will be left paralysed without adequate solutions to arguably the nation’s most pressing economic and cultural problem.

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.