Pauline Hanson has declared Australia’s skilled migration system an “absolute scam”, vowing to stop visas being used to bring in workers for occupations she says the country does not genuinely need while pushing One Nation’s plan to dramatically reduce migration.
The One Nation leader singled out “dog walkers, nail technicians and Uber drivers” as examples while arguing Australia should reserve skilled migration for occupations facing genuine shortages.
Hanson said the country should continue accepting migrants capable of filling essential skills gaps, but rejected the idea that a large migration program was necessary simply to supply workers across a wide range of lower-skilled occupations.
“It’s an absolute scam,” Hanson said as she attacked the existing system.
Her intervention comes amid an intensifying national debate over migration, with housing shortages, population growth and pressure on infrastructure increasingly colliding with warnings from employers that Australia cannot fill critical vacancies without overseas workers.
Hanson’s proposed answer is to reduce migration substantially and make the remaining program much more selective.
One Nation has been promoting a figure of about 130,000 migrants a year, substantially below Labor’s current permanent Migration Program of 185,000 places for 2026–27.
But Hanson’s most politically potent argument is not simply that Australia is bringing in too many people. It is that the country is importing the wrong workers.
Her references to dog walkers, nail technicians and Uber drivers are designed to challenge the language of “skilled migration” itself.
For many Australians, a skilled migrant evokes a doctor, nurse, engineer, construction specialist or another worker filling a clearly identifiable shortage.
Hanson argues the reality of Australia’s migration and labour system has moved too far away from that principle.
She wants visa policy rebuilt around a much stricter question: does Australia actually need to import someone to perform this job?
If the answer is no, Hanson says the occupation should not provide a pathway that contributes to Australia’s migration intake.
What Australia’s skilled migration system actually does
The existing system is more complicated than the political slogan suggests.
Australia does not have one universal list under which every person working in an occupation described as “skilled” automatically qualifies for a visa.
The Department of Home Affairs maintains occupation requirements applying across several different visa subclasses, including the Skilled Independent visa, Skilled Nominated visa, Skills in Demand visa and regional and employer-sponsored programs.
Eligibility can depend on the particular visa, the occupation’s ANZSCO classification, the relevant skilled occupation list, qualifications, work experience, skills assessments, sponsorship and other requirements.
The current framework includes the Core Skills Occupation List as well as other occupation lists applying to particular migration pathways.
That distinction matters when assessing Hanson’s examples.
Her criticism should not be interpreted as establishing that every dog walker, rideshare driver or nail technician can currently obtain the same Commonwealth skilled visa merely by declaring that occupation.
Rather, Hanson is using those jobs to attack what she regards as a broader migration system that allows too much lower-skilled labour into Australia while governments continue to describe migration as economically necessary.
That broader argument also encompasses international students, temporary workers, family migration and other visa categories.
Hanson has separately criticised international students being accompanied by family members and has called for much tighter control of temporary migration.
Her objective is therefore considerably larger than editing one skilled occupation list.
A One Nation government seeking the population reduction Hanson is promising would need to change multiple components of Australia’s visa system.
130,000 versus Labor’s 185,000
One Nation’s headline migration number is about 130,000 people annually.
Labor’s permanent Migration Program for 2026–27 remains at 185,000 places, with roughly 70 per cent allocated to skilled migration.
That difference is substantial.
But political debate around migration frequently mixes two measurements that are not interchangeable: the permanent Migration Program and net overseas migration.
The permanent program covers permanent visa places determined by government policy.
Net overseas migration is a population measure recording the net effect of people arriving in and departing from Australia under the statistical residence rules.
It therefore includes large numbers of temporary migrants, including international students and temporary workers, as well as other population movements not represented by the permanent migration ceiling alone.
Cutting the permanent program from 185,000 to 130,000 would consequently not, by itself, guarantee that net overseas migration fell to 130,000.
Achieving that result would require substantially broader changes to temporary visa flows and potentially other migration categories.
That distinction will become increasingly important as One Nation’s proposal receives greater scrutiny.
Hanson’s political argument is nevertheless straightforward.
She says Australia needs what she describes as a “breather” from rapid population growth.
Housing is at the centre of her case.
Australia has struggled for years to construct enough new homes to accommodate population growth and household formation, while renters and prospective buyers have faced severe affordability pressures.
Hanson argues governments cannot credibly promise to solve the housing shortage while continuing to add large numbers of people who also need somewhere to live.
She applies the same reasoning to roads, hospitals, schools and other infrastructure.
Population growth can expand the economy and government revenue, but it also creates additional demand for services and capital investment.
For One Nation, reducing migration is therefore both an immigration policy and an economic policy.
Hanson says genuine skills would remain welcome
Hanson is not proposing to eliminate skilled migration entirely.
That is an important element of the policy that can disappear amid the rhetoric surrounding her migration campaign.
She says Australia should continue admitting people who possess skills the country genuinely lacks.
The difference is that One Nation wants a much higher threshold for establishing that need.
A construction specialist required to help build homes, for example, presents a different economic argument from importing labour into an occupation where Australians are readily available to perform the work.
Health presents another obvious case.
Australia relies heavily on overseas-trained doctors, nurses and other medical professionals, particularly in regional areas where recruitment has historically been difficult.
Engineering, specialised trades and parts of the resources sector also rely on international skills.
Hanson’s challenge is to distinguish those genuine shortages from employers simply preferring access to a larger international labour pool.
That distinction sounds straightforward politically but can become difficult in practice.
Labour shortages vary between regions.
An occupation with adequate workers in Melbourne may face severe shortages in regional Western Australia.
Shortages also change over time as economic conditions, investment and training pipelines change.
A migration system based strictly on demonstrated need therefore requires continually updated labour-market information rather than a permanent political list of acceptable and unacceptable occupations.
Australia already attempts to incorporate labour-market demand into its skilled migration architecture.
The argument is over whether the existing process does it effectively enough.
Hanson says it does not.
Business warns against going too far
Major employers and business organisations are pushing in the opposite direction.
The Minerals Council of Australia has warned that excessively restrictive migration policies could produce a “talent crunch” across industries essential to investment and economic growth.
Mining companies compete internationally for engineers, technical specialists and other highly skilled workers.
The sector argues domestic training remains essential but cannot always produce enough people quickly enough to meet demand.
Construction presents an even more politically difficult contradiction.
Reducing migration could reduce additional demand for housing.
But Australia also needs skilled construction workers to build the additional homes required to overcome the existing shortage.
If migration cuts remove more builders and tradespeople than they remove housing demand, they could potentially slow the construction response.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has similarly cautioned against blunt reductions that leave businesses unable to find workers.
Its argument is that migration settings should respond to genuine workforce requirements rather than being driven primarily by headline population targets.
Hanson has shown little sympathy for warnings that lower migration could hurt sectors dependent on overseas workers.
Asked about potential effects on businesses and universities, she said Australia’s immediate priority should be restoring living standards and relieving pressure on citizens already here.
She has argued businesses should not automatically be entitled to an expanding consumer market or unlimited access to overseas labour.
That represents a significant ideological divide in the migration debate.
For much of corporate Australia, population growth contributes workers, consumers, students and investment to the economy.
For One Nation, aggregate economic growth is an inadequate measure if individual Australians experience worsening housing affordability, congestion and declining access to services.
The party increasingly frames the question around living standards per person rather than the size of national GDP.
Migration debate shifts as One Nation rises
The timing of Hanson’s intervention is politically important.
Migration has moved rapidly towards the centre of Australian politics as One Nation’s support has increased and both Labor and the Coalition face pressure to demonstrate greater control of the system.
Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke recently postponed a major migration speech while the government worked through proposed changes.
Labor figures insist their policies are being developed in the national interest rather than as a reaction to Hanson.
The government points to a substantial decline in net overseas migration from the extraordinary levels reached during the post-pandemic reopening period.
It also argues skilled migration remains indispensable to sectors where Australia does not have enough workers.
The permanent Migration Program nevertheless remains at 185,000 for 2026–27.
That gives Hanson an easily understood contrast.
One Nation says 130,000.
Labor says 185,000 permanent places while pursuing other measures to manage temporary and net migration.
The political simplicity of those numbers is likely to become a significant part of the next federal election campaign, even though the underlying migration system is much more complicated.
Hanson also claims the major parties are increasingly adopting arguments One Nation has made for years.
That is central to her political strategy.
Rather than merely demanding credit for tougher migration policies, she argues voters should support the party that pushed the issue onto the national agenda in the first place.
Labor rejects suggestions that Hanson is setting its policy.
Government ministers argue migration settings must balance population pressures with economic requirements, family obligations, humanitarian responsibilities and Australia’s international interests.
The Coalition is facing its own political challenge.
It traditionally advocates strong border control while also maintaining close relationships with industries that depend heavily on skilled migration.
One Nation’s rise forces conservative politicians to navigate both constituencies.
The ‘Uber driver’ argument
Hanson’s choice of occupations is politically deliberate.
“Uber drivers”, “dog walkers” and “nail technicians” are instantly understandable examples requiring none of the technical language surrounding migration policy.
They allow her to ask voters a simple question: should Australia increase its population because employers cannot find enough people to perform those jobs?
But that framing can also obscure how migrants actually enter and participate in the Australian labour market.
A person driving for a rideshare platform may have entered Australia under an entirely different visa category or may possess qualifications unrelated to the work they are currently performing.
International students, partners and other temporary visa holders can participate in the labour market without having been admitted specifically because Australia required more rideshare drivers.
The job a migrant performs after arrival is therefore not necessarily the occupation that provided the basis for admission.
That distinction is critical if policy is to address the actual mechanism rather than the visible outcome.
If Hanson’s concern is that skilled visas are being granted for occupations without genuine shortages, occupation lists and employer sponsorship rules would be the relevant target.
If her concern is that too many temporary migrants ultimately work in lower-skilled jobs, substantially broader reform would be required.
One Nation’s overall migration platform suggests Hanson intends to pursue both.
She has repeatedly linked international education, temporary migration, visa overstayers and permanent migration into a single argument that Australia has lost control over population growth.
The government rejects that characterisation but accepts migration needs to fall from recent peaks.
The real test would be defining ‘genuine shortage’
Hanson’s proposal ultimately turns on two words: genuine shortage.
Few Australians would object in principle to designing skilled migration around skills the country genuinely requires.
The political disagreement begins when government must decide what qualifies.
Employers have an incentive to argue shortages are severe because migration expands their potential labour supply.
Workers and unions may worry that excessive access to overseas labour suppresses wages or reduces incentives to train Australians.
Universities and training providers have their own interests.
State governments may identify shortages that do not appear in national data.
Regional communities can have workforce problems entirely different from capital cities.
A credible overhaul would therefore require transparent evidence showing which occupations are in shortage, how severe those shortages are, how long they are expected to last and whether domestic training could realistically fill them.
It would also need mechanisms to remove occupations when shortages disappear.
That is where Hanson’s “absolute scam” allegation would have to move from political rhetoric to administrative design.
If One Nation can demonstrate that visa pathways are systematically admitting workers for occupations where Australia has no genuine shortage, it would have a powerful case for reform.
If the examples primarily reflect migrants working in jobs unrelated to the visas under which they entered, the solution would be considerably more complicated.
Either way, Hanson has identified an argument likely to resonate well beyond One Nation’s existing supporters.
Australians facing record housing costs increasingly want governments to explain not merely how migration benefits the national economy, but how many people the country can sustainably absorb and precisely which skills those arrivals bring.
Hanson’s answer is 130,000, selected much more aggressively around national need.
Business groups warn that getting the number or occupational mix wrong could leave Australia without the people required to build houses, operate mines, staff hospitals and deliver major projects.
One Nation argues the greater danger is continuing a migration model that expands population faster than housing and infrastructure can keep up.
That is the contest behind Hanson’s provocative examples.
Dog walkers and Uber drivers make the headlines.
The much bigger argument is over who gets to decide which workers Australia genuinely needs — and how many additional people the country can afford to accommodate.
