After a day of political theatre over Senator Pauline Hanson’s burqa stunt and subsequent suspension, One Nation sought to revive its long-held demand for a public vote on migration.
Senator Malcolm Roberts reintroduced the party’s Future Migration Level Bill on Nov. 26 to the Senate, first proposed in 2018, seeking a plebiscite on whether Australia should adopt zero net migration for five years.
“It’s time to ask the Australian people in a plebiscite how much immigration is enough,” he said, arguing that “the first duty of a parliamentary representative is to listen to the people’s masters.”
The bill outlines the framework for holding a national plebiscite asking: “Do you support a zero net migration policy for a period of five years?”
Malcom framed it as a simple question. “Zero net simply means the number of new arrivals must equal the number of people who leave … This brings to an end the era of massive population growth.”
He said a pause would “ease the pressure on housing, medical services, education, transport infrastructure” and give Australia “space for the assimilation of the massive number of people who have been brought to Australia under this Labor government.”
He added that One Nation was not anti-immigration.
Rejected By Coalition
The proposal was rejected by the Liberal Party, even as it develops its own stricter migration plan.Liberal Senator Paul Scarr argued that migration “is extraordinarily complicated.”
“A plebiscite process in the context of such a complicated, multifaceted issue … is simply inappropriate,” he said.
However, the opposition agreed that migration was too high.
“To be clear, the coalition believes that the current rate of immigration is too high. There’s no question about that,” Scarr said.
He cited Treasury and population data showing net overseas migration of 316,000 to March 2025—well above pre-pandemic averages and government forecasts.
Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie echoed Scarr, accusing Labor of using migration for “electoral benefits” and pointing to temporary migration streams and international students.
Independent Objections
Independent Senator Fatima Payman delivered one of the strongest critiques, saying a plebiscite was misplaced in a time of economic strain.“We are in the middle of a cost of living crisis, a housing crisis, a climate crisis … a non-binding plebiscite can’t be a solution,” she said.
She argued the proposal was not genuinely about planning or economics but about fear and division.
Quoting The Australia Institute, Payman said claims of unprecedented migration lacked evidence, noting population growth had already returned to pre-COVID trends.
She also challenged the notion that migration drives housing unaffordability, pointing to the price surge during the COVID-19 lockdowns, where population growth had been near-zero.
On labour shortages, she said, “If we stopped migration tomorrow, hospitals would collapse. Construction would grind to a halt… aged care would fall over completely.”
Greens Blast the Bill
Greens Senator David Shoebridge also strongly criticised the bill.“It’s the reheated one nation vomit of division, anti-immigration, Islamophobia … This legislation is an amateur racist attempt to divide Australia,” he said.
Shoebridge argued the real cause of housing pressures is not migration but the shortage of tradespeople—a problem he linked to the privatisation of TAFE.
Migrant Workforce Reality
Meanwhile, Tasmanian Independent Senator Tammy Tyrrell took a different tack, illustrating her point with a story about an ordinary day involving a rideshare driver, nurse, GP, taxi driver and delivery worker.“Every single person I mentioned in that story was a migrant … vital to the smooth running of your life and mine,” she said.
She concluded: “This reliance on migrants … is the backbone of our community and our economy. We don’t need to waste taxpayers’ dollars on a plebiscite.”
The Senate deferred the bill for further debate, with several parties noting it had already failed in 2018.
