One Nation promises negative net migration and a major reduction in temporary entrants, but its policy leaves crucial questions unanswered about permanent migration, skilled visas and how its headline targets could be delivered.

On the recent National Forum program on the ABC, Barnaby Joyce struggled to understand his own immigration policy. He made a number of claims that were either outright false or reflected a deep misunderstanding of immigration policy, including of his own policy.

His biggest misunderstanding was that he thinks net overseas migration (NOM) targets and the size of the proposed reduction in the temporary entrant cohort of 750,000 can be determined without specifying a target for the size and composition of the permanent migration program. His leader Pauline Hanson has often just thought NOM and the permanent program are the same thing.

The permanent migration program is the number of permanent visas issued, including to temporary entrants who are already in Australia. In 2026-27, the government is planning for 70 per cent of the migration program of 185,000 to be granted to temporary entrants.

If One Nation maintained the permanent program at the current level, over three years around 388,000 temporary entrants would be granted permanent visas. They would no longer be temporary entrants and would, ignoring new arrivals and departures, reduce the stock of temporary entrants.

In One Nation’s nine-page immigration policy manifesto, it is astounding there is not a single mention of the permanent migration program. Without a permanent migration program target, it is impossible to work out either how One Nation would deliver its proposal to reduce the stock of temporary entrants by 750,000 over three years or how it would deliver its target of negative NOM over three years and then 130,000 NOM from then on.

We have no idea what One Nation’s position is on the permanent program and during the National Forum program, Joyce refused to give a number. I suspect that is because neither he nor whoever wrote the One Nation immigration policy manifesto have considered that.

At one point during the program, George Megalogenis asked Joyce if the 750,000 reduction in the stock of temporary entrants over three years would mean a negative NOM of 250,000 per annum? The extraordinary response was to correct George and say the reduction over three years would be larger than 750,000. Joyce failed to correct the suggestion George was making that under One Nation policy NOM would be negative 250,000 per annum for three years.

It was on that basis George suggested that was a massive scoop and that it would lead to the biggest recession since the 1890s. Negative NOM of 250,000 per annum over three years would indeed be unprecedented in Australia’s history. It would mean negative population growth of around 150,000 per annum for three years. That is a significantly bigger and more sustained reduction in population growth than in Canada in 2025 or after the Great Depression.

Negative NOM of 250,000 per annum over three years would mean a far bigger reduction in the stock of temporary entrants than 750,000, noting that not all temporary entry departures are NOM departures as many have stayed in Australia for less than 12 months. A negative NOM of 250,000 per annum for three years would require not only a larger reduction in the temporary entrant stock than just 750,000 but also a large exodus of Australian and New Zealand citizens as well as existing permanent residents. It would certainly require a labour market much weaker than the one Canada relied upon to achieve its relatively brief and much more limited negative NOM.

I suspect the point George was making went straight over Joyce’s head.

On a number of occasions, Joyce referred to a NOM ‘ceiling’. This is similar to the Coalition’s constant reference to ‘capping’ NOM. While there is a great deal of merit in having a NOM target and framework to manage NOM, it is impossible to ‘cap’ NOM or have a ‘ceiling’ for NOM. This is not least because government does not receive the preliminary estimate of NOM for any year until around six months after that year is over.

Any politician who refers to either a ‘ceiling’ for NOM or a ‘cap’ for NOM is either just misleading the public or is ignorant of how NOM works.

Joyce claimed that in the skilled temporary visa category, nurses made up just 1.29 per cent and aged care workers made up 0.41 per cent of visas granted. In doing so, he sought to downplay the role of this visa in Australia’s health and aged care system.

There are a wide range of nursing related occupations. It is not clear which ones Joyce was referring to when he said only 1.29 per cent of the visa category were nurses. In 2025-26, around 2.9 per cent of all primary visa grants in the skilled temporary visa were to people in a nursing occupation, not 1.29 per cent.

But even that higher figure is misleading because there is a vast range of health and medical related occupations that were granted visas in this category in 2025-26 (eg doctors, specialists, dentists, pharmacists, ambulance and paramedics). The overall number of health and aged care sector occupations securing a primary skilled temporary visa in 2025-26 was 11,749 or 16.9 per cent.

In addition, there are permanent skilled visa categories through which nurses receive visas. In 2024-25, there were 1,467 primary visas granted to registered nurses in the skilled independent category; 846 in the state/territory nominated category; 2,394 in the permanent employer sponsored category; and 299 in the regional category.

Joyce repeatedly said One Nation policy is to prohibit skilled temporary visa applicants from bringing their spouse or dependent children with them. But when confronted with the example of a number of overseas trained doctors recently recruited by Armidale Hospital and asked whether these doctors would have come to Australia if they could not bring their spouse and dependent children, Joyce started back-peddling.

He started modifying One Nation policy on the run, saying that highly skilled people like doctors would be allowed to bring their spouse and dependent children. But he did not specify which other occupations would be regarded as highly skilled. For example, would this exception apply to engineers? nurses? teachers? carpenters? electricians?

This may be another area of One Nation policy that needs work.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.