One Nation’s proposal to cap visa arrivals at 130,000 a year has become one of the most discussed migration policies in Australian politics. With Pauline Hanson’s party polling strongly and gaining attention beyond its traditional base, the policy is increasingly being scrutinised for what it could mean for housing, migration, public finances and the economy.
To test some of those claims, The Indian Sun asked Claude, Anthropic’s latest and most advanced artificial intelligence model, to examine publicly available data from the Parliamentary Budget Office, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Treasury’s population forecasts and other government sources. The exercise was not a prediction of the future, nor an official government forecast. Rather, it was an attempt to model what Australia might look like if One Nation’s proposed cap were implemented and maintained over the next decade.
The findings suggest the policy could ease pressure on housing and infrastructure. At the same time, it could leave Australia with a smaller workforce, lower tax revenue and a weaker budget position than under current migration settings.
The starting point is the scale of the proposed change.
Australia recorded 568,000 migrant arrivals and 263,000 departures in 2024-25, producing net overseas migration of about 306,000 people. Treasury expects net migration to moderate over coming years, falling from post-pandemic highs to around 225,000 to 260,000 annually.
One Nation’s proposal is far more restrictive. Pauline Hanson has repeatedly argued for a cap of 130,000 arrivals a year, covering both permanent and temporary migration streams. If departures continued at roughly current levels, the modelling suggests Australia could move from positive net migration to negative net migration, with more people leaving the country than arriving.
Over time, that would produce a markedly different Australia.
For renters, particularly in high-growth areas of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, that would be one of the clearest benefits of a lower migration intake
Using Parliamentary Budget Office migration scenarios as a guide, the modelling estimates Australia’s population could be around 2.8 million people smaller by 2035-36 than under current projections. Instead of reaching approximately 30.7 million people, Australia’s population could sit closer to 27.9 million.
That change has direct implications for housing demand.
Migration has become central to Australia’s housing debate because most new arrivals enter the rental market first. Demand for rental accommodation has surged in recent years while housing construction has struggled to keep pace. Vacancy rates remain low in many parts of the country and rents have risen sharply.
The modelling suggests that a substantially smaller population would reduce demand for housing. Using current household size estimates, a population trajectory around 2.8 million lower could translate into demand for roughly 100,000 to 115,000 fewer dwellings each year than would otherwise be required.
If those assumptions prove accurate, housing pressure would ease. The modelling estimates rents could sit 10 to 15 per cent below their projected path by the early 2030s, while housing prices could be several percentage points lower than under current migration settings.
For renters, particularly in high-growth areas of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, that would be one of the clearest benefits of a lower migration intake.
Infrastructure pressures would also be reduced. Fewer people would mean lower demand for roads, public transport, schools, hospitals and utilities. Governments would face less pressure to expand infrastructure at the pace currently required by population growth.
Housing and infrastructure are therefore the strongest parts of the argument for a lower migration cap.
The budget picture is less straightforward.
The Parliamentary Budget Office has previously modelled various migration scenarios and found that lower migration generally leads to weaker budget outcomes over time. The reason is simple. Most migrants arrive during their working years. They pay income tax, GST and other taxes while making relatively limited use of age-related government services for many years.
Reducing migration therefore removes future taxpayers as well as future consumers of public services.
Using the PBO’s own modelling framework, Claude estimated that a migration setting substantially below current projections could leave the federal budget around $10 billion to $22 billion weaker annually by the mid-2030s. The midpoint estimate was about $15 billion a year.
That does not mean migration is a fiscal cure-all. It does suggest that lower migration is unlikely to improve the Commonwealth budget on its own.
One Nation supporters often argue that migration places pressure on housing, hospitals, schools and roads. Critics point out that migrants also contribute taxes, skills and economic activity. The modelling indicates both arguments contain elements of truth.
The report also examined one of One Nation’s more controversial migration proposals: ending parent visas.
Treasury’s fiscal modelling has previously found that skilled migrants typically make a positive lifetime contribution to public finances. Parent visa holders, by contrast, often arrive later in life and are more likely to draw on health and aged care services.
According to Treasury estimates cited in the modelling, an employer-sponsored skilled migrant can contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to government finances over a lifetime, while a parent visa holder can represent a net fiscal cost.
Removing parent visas would therefore improve the budget position. The modelling suggests this element of One Nation’s policy may produce measurable savings irrespective of any broader migration cap.
For many Australians of Indian heritage, however, the parent visa debate extends beyond economics.
Thousands of Indian-Australian families have parents waiting in Australia’s parent visa queues. For those families, the discussion is not simply about public finances. It is also about family reunification, childcare support, ageing parents and maintaining family connections across continents.
The modelling can estimate costs and benefits to governments. It cannot place a dollar value on family relationships.
Another area highlighted by the report is international education.
Australia’s international education sector generates tens of billions of dollars annually and remains one of the country’s largest export industries. Student visa numbers alone have exceeded the entire size of One Nation’s proposed annual cap in recent years.
A strict cap covering all arrivals would therefore have major implications for universities, vocational education providers and related industries.
The modelling suggests international education exports could decline sharply under such a system, creating challenges for university finances and research funding. It could also affect sectors that rely heavily on migrant workers, including aged care, disability support, healthcare, agriculture and hospitality.
The modelling estimates Australia’s economy could be between 7 and 9 per cent smaller by 2035-36 than under current projections. However, economic output per person may not change dramatically.
The wider economic impact is mixed.
A smaller population would produce a smaller overall economy. The modelling estimates Australia’s economy could be between 7 and 9 per cent smaller by 2035-36 than under current projections. However, economic output per person may not change dramatically. Depending on how migration is targeted, living standards could end up modestly lower, largely unchanged or slightly higher than current forecasts.
That finding is important because much of Australia’s migration debate focuses on aggregate economic growth rather than living standards.
The final question concerns clarity.
One Nation’s policy discussions have at times referred to a 130,000 cap on migration broadly, while other references have focused specifically on permanent migration. The difference matters. A cap on permanent visas would represent a much smaller change than a cap covering permanent and temporary arrivals combined.
The modelling assumes the broader interpretation because that is the version most often discussed publicly by Hanson and senior One Nation figures. If the party’s position differs, the economic and fiscal outcomes could look very different.
What emerges from the exercise is a picture of trade-offs rather than easy answers.
The modelling suggests lower migration could ease housing pressures, reduce infrastructure demand and slow population growth. It also suggests lower migration would reduce the number of taxpayers, weaken budget revenues and create challenges for universities and industries reliant on migrant labour.
Supporters of the policy will likely focus on housing affordability, congestion and population growth. Opponents will point to economic growth, workforce shortages and government revenues.
The modelling does not settle the debate. It does illustrate that migration policy is rarely cost-free. Whether Australians are prepared to accept the trade-offs that come with a 130,000 visa cap is ultimately a political question rather than an economic one.
One-Nation-130k-Cap-Modelling-Study
Support independent community journalism. Support The Indian Sun.
Follow The Indian Sun on X | Instagram | Facebook
Support Independent Community Journalism
Dear Reader,The Indian Sun exists for one reason: to tell stories that might otherwise go unheard.
We report on local councils, state politics, small businesses and cultural festivals. We focus on the Indian diaspora and the wider multicultural community with care, balance and accountability. We publish in print and online, send regular newsletters and produce video content. We also run media training programs to help community organisations share their own stories.
We operate independently.
Community journalism does not have the backing of large media corporations. Advertising revenue fluctuates. Platform algorithms change. Costs continue to rise. Yet the need for credible, grounded reporting in a multicultural Australia has never been greater.
When you support The Indian Sun, you support:
• Independent reporting on issues affecting migrant communities
• Coverage of local and state decisions that shape daily life
• A platform for small businesses and community groups
• Media training that builds skills within the community
• Journalism accountable to readers
We cannot cover everything, but we work to cover what matters.
If you value thoughtful reporting that reflects Australia’s diversity, we invite you to contribute. Every donation helps us maintain the quality and consistency of our work.
Please consider making a contribution today.
Thank you for your support.
The Indian Sun Team
