One Nation MP says migration target mirrors Labor’s plan

Background on One Nation’s migration stance

One Nation has long positioned itself as a critic of high net migration levels. The party argues that uncontrolled migration puts pressure on housing, infrastructure and public services. At the same time, it recognises that certain sectors, especially agriculture, rely on seasonal and skilled overseas workers to maintain production.

David Farley’s comments on ABC Insiders

During a recent appearance on ABC Insiders, One Nation MP David Farley clarified the party’s position. He said the migration target the party supports is "not too different" from the figure put forward by the Labor government. Farley added that the party’s figure includes a specific allocation for rural workers, a detail he said was often missed in public debate.

Comparing the numbers

Labor’s policy documents outline a net migration target of 130,000 people per year. One Nation, according to Farley, proposes a total of 230,000, but separates the figure into two parts:

• 100,000 migrant workers for rural and regional industries
• 130,000 general migrants, which the party describes as the "true" migration number

The split is intended to show that the party does not seek a blanket increase in population, but rather a targeted boost to sectors that face labour shortages.

Why skilled workers and backpackers matter to agriculture

Agriculture accounts for a significant share of Australia’s export earnings. Seasonal work such as fruit picking, horticulture and livestock handling often cannot be filled by the domestic workforce alone. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that rural unemployment rates are consistently lower than in major cities, indicating a limited pool of available workers.

Backpackers and other short‑term visa holders provide a flexible labour source that can move between regions as crops mature. Skilled workers, including agronomists and farm managers, bring expertise that improves yields and sustainability.

Industry perspective

According to a report by the Australian Farm Institute, the sector would need an additional 80,000 seasonal workers each year to meet projected demand. The report highlights that without overseas labour, many farms would face reduced output, higher costs and potential closures.

Political implications for the upcoming election

The admission that One Nation’s target is close to Labor’s could reshape the narrative around immigration policy. Traditionally, One Nation has used migration as a rallying point against the major parties. By acknowledging similarity, the party may be trying to shift the debate toward the quality and distribution of migrants rather than sheer numbers.

Labor, for its part, has framed its migration plan as a balanced approach that supports economic growth while protecting Australian jobs. The party’s policy page on Labor’s official website emphasises the need for skilled migrants to fill gaps in health, engineering and technology, as well as seasonal work in agriculture.

Policy options and public reaction

Both parties face pressure from rural communities that rely on overseas workers and from voter groups that are concerned about population growth. The following policy options are being discussed:

1. Introduce a dedicated visa stream for seasonal agricultural workers with a clear pathway to longer stays.
2. Increase the quota for skilled migrants in sectors identified by the Department of Home Affairs as experiencing shortages.
3. Implement regional incentives for permanent migrants who settle outside major metropolitan areas.
4. Strengthen training programs for Australian citizens to reduce reliance on overseas labour over the long term.

Public opinion polls show a split view. A recent survey by SBS News found that 48% of respondents support higher migration to address labour shortages, while 42% remain concerned about the impact on housing and services.

One Nation’s strategy of framing the migration target as “not too different” may appeal to voters who want a pragmatic solution without the perceived excesses of a high‑volume immigration policy. Whether this approach will translate into electoral gains remains to be seen, but it signals a shift toward nuanced discussion of migration’s role in the Australian economy.

As the election approaches, both parties are likely to refine their messaging. The key question for voters will be whether they view targeted migration as a necessary tool for sustaining rural production, or as a pressure point on resources that should be limited.