Pauline Hanson has finally put detailed numbers behind One Nation’s promise to dramatically reduce temporary migration, but the arithmetic has immediately opened a second question that may prove harder than setting the target: exactly how will more than three-quarters of a million people disappear from Australia’s temporary visa population within three years?
The answer matters because reducing the number of temporary visa holders is not necessarily the same thing as reducing the number of people living in Australia.
A Financial Review breakdown, using figures supplied by One Nation, shows the party intends to reduce five categories by a combined 766,000 people. Student visa holders would fall from 589,923 to 350,000, temporary graduates from 269,674 to just 40,000, temporary skilled visa holders from 263,489 to 160,000, bridging visa holders from 412,533 to 300,000, while an estimated 80,000 unlawful non-citizens would be reduced to zero.
The plan is designed to bring Australia’s total temporary migrant population back towards 2017 levels and produce net-negative overseas migration during an initial three-year reset, before a long-term net overseas migration ceiling of 130,000 is imposed.
It is substantially more detailed than the migration policy One Nation was defending only weeks ago, when different party figures struggled to explain what the 130,000 number actually represented.
Migration analyst and former senior Immigration Department official Abul Rizvi acknowledged that improvement.
“Level of detail in ON announcement is good. Some proposed changes are also good. But trying to reduce TE population by 750,000 over 3 years when labour market is relatively strong will be challenging. Not clear how much of that will be departures vs TEs getting PR,” Rizvi said.
That distinction goes directly to the heart of the policy.
One Nation wants the number of subclass 485 graduate visa holders reduced from almost 270,000 to 40,000, a reduction of about 85 per cent
If a temporary graduate receives permanent residency, for example, the temporary population falls by one but Australia’s population does not. The person still needs a home, still works and consumes here and still counts towards population demand. The same applies when somebody moves from a bridging visa onto another substantive visa.
Rizvi said it remained unclear how much of the reduction would come through “increased TE departures”, temporary residents securing permanent residency, or reduced arrivals, adding that there was “no indication of size of PR program”.
That is the missing equation.
One Nation can cut the temporary visa stock administratively by moving people into permanent visas. But if the stated objective is to relieve housing, hospital and infrastructure pressures and achieve net-negative migration, large numbers will actually have to leave Australia or be prevented from arriving in the first place.
That makes the temporary graduate visa target particularly striking.
One Nation wants the number of subclass 485 graduate visa holders reduced from almost 270,000 to 40,000, a reduction of about 85 per cent. Temporary graduate visas currently allow international students who complete eligible Australian qualifications to remain and work, generally for two or three years.
The student visa population would also be cut by about 240,000. Hanson says universities would still be able to enrol more than 100,000 international students each year, with preference given to institutions providing accommodation and high-value postgraduate research.
One Nation has previously argued that students should generally have to leave Australia before applying for further visas, and has specifically targeted course-hopping and the use of bridging visas by former students. In June, Hanson said the party wanted to stop students who dropped out of courses receiving bridging visas to remain and work while pursuing further applications or reviews.
The department says unlawful non-citizens are a constantly changing population. About 20,000 of the estimated 77,700 had been unlawful for a year or less, while 25,800 had been in that position for more than a decade. Many leave voluntarily or subsequently resolve their immigration status
But there is an important difference between tightening that pathway and suggesting that international students are broadly overstaying illegally.
Home Affairs estimated there were 77,700 unlawful non-citizens in Australia at June 30, 2025. That figure covered everyone in the country without a valid visa, regardless of what visa they previously held. It is therefore impossible for there simultaneously to have been 100,000 international students unlawfully overstaying, as some One Nation figures have previously claimed, if “illegal” was being used in the formal immigration sense.
The department says unlawful non-citizens are a constantly changing population. About 20,000 of the estimated 77,700 had been unlawful for a year or less, while 25,800 had been in that position for more than a decade. Many leave voluntarily or subsequently resolve their immigration status.
One Nation’s current figure of 80,000 is therefore much closer to the official estimate than some of its previous claims, but removing virtually the entire unlawful population in three years would still be an extraordinary enforcement undertaking.
The bridging visa target raises another issue with particular relevance to migrant families.
Bridging visas are not one migration program. They are temporary legal status arrangements covering people waiting for decisions on permanent and temporary visas, appeals and other immigration matters. Home Affairs recorded 412,582 bridging visa holders at the end of 2025 and says they include multiple bridging subclasses.
One Nation proposes cutting that cohort to 300,000.
But it has not publicly identified which 112,533 bridging visa holders are expected to disappear from the category.
That creates a question for parents and families already caught in lengthy visa queues.
Some aged-parent visas can be applied for while the parent is in Australia. Home Affairs explicitly says applicants for the Aged Parent subclass 804 and Contributory Aged Parent subclass 864 are likely to receive bridging visas allowing them to stay lawfully while the application is processed.
“At first glance this is mostly pretty solid. But why One Nation needs over 4x the number of bridging visa holders vs parts of the 2010s, I dont know”
There is currently no evidence that One Nation intends to remove parents already lawfully holding those bridging visas.
But if the party wants the bridging population cut by more than 112,000 while also restricting onshore visa switching, it will need to explain which groups are protected, which must apply offshore, and what happens to people already waiting under existing rules.
That clarity will matter greatly to families, particularly after Labor itself considered restricting the ability of some family applicants to move from visitor visas onto bridging arrangements while waiting in Australia.
Economics commentator Tarric Brooker gave the plan a relatively positive initial assessment but also questioned the bridging target.
“At first glance this is mostly pretty solid. But why One Nation needs over 4x the number of bridging visa holders vs parts of the 2010s, I dont know,” he wrote.
The criticism from elsewhere has been considerably harsher.
Health Minister Mark Butler warned the proposal would “smash industries like construction” and “devastate the health sector and aged care and disability”, while deputy Liberal leader Jane Hume said negative migration would represent “a real shock to the economy” and could risk recession if implemented without detailed modelling.
The National Farmers’ Federation has also warned against cuts that leave regional employers without access to migrant labour. One Nation has sought to address that concern by retaining the PALM and working holiday programs and keeping employer-sponsored skilled migration.
Yet the party also proposes reducing temporary skilled visa holders by more than 100,000 and preventing temporary skilled migrants from bringing family members under the current arrangements.
That creates another test. An employer may still be allowed to sponsor an engineer, nurse or specialist, but Australia could become less attractive to that worker if a spouse or children cannot accompany them.
Aaron Smith put the potential consequences in deliberately graphic terms, saying: “One Nation has a plan to destroy Australia’s tertiary education sector, hammer hospitality businesses, and leave your Grandma in aged care choking on her own vomit while an unanswered call bell flashes beside her bed.”
The political pressure is also coming from the other direction.
Anti-migration activist Hugo Lennon, who had criticised One Nation during the recent dispute over its numbers, greeted the new policy as evidence that outside pressure had worked.
“Pressure works, making our support conditional works,” Lennon wrote, asking whether those who attacked critics of the party would now “learn the lesson”.
Former Queensland senator and People First Party leader Gerard Rennick responded by accusing Hanson of inconsistency.
“Or you could just back a party that stays consistent and actually understands how the process works,” Rennick wrote. “Why you back someone like Hanson is beyond me. She does more backflips than a Romanian gymnast.”
That exchange captures where Hanson now finds herself.
A month ago, One Nation was being attacked from its own right flank for failing to explain its migration numbers. Today it has produced a substantially more detailed plan.
The 766,000 figure gives voters something concrete to judge.
It also makes the unanswered questions much harder to avoid.
How many people actually leave Australia? How many simply become permanent residents? Which bridging visa holders are expected to go? Are aged parents waiting lawfully in Australia protected? How many student visa holders would be required to depart rather than move onto graduate or other visas? What happens if employers demand more skilled workers than the new ceiling permits?
And perhaps most importantly, how does One Nation achieve net-negative migration while retaining the workers it says agriculture, aged care and other essential industries will still be able to recruit?
For the first time, Hanson has provided enough detail for the policy to be seriously tested.
The next argument will not be about whether 750,000 sounds large.
It will be about where, precisely, those 750,000 people go.
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
