Australia’s political debate over One Nation and immigration has intensified, with published letters offering sharply contrasting views on Pauline Hanson’s party, migration levels and the quality of political discourse.
Some correspondents argued that One Nation’s recent electoral gains should not be mistaken for a decisive shift in the national mood. One writer noted that, despite two byelection victories, the party held only six of the 226 seats in federal parliament.
Barry Ffrench, from Cronulla, said Australians might support a political “stirrer” but remained fundamentally conservative when choosing a government. He argued that One Nation offered “lots of noise, no substance” and lacked solutions to cost-of-living pressures.
Other letters warned that simplistic political messaging could become influential during periods of public anxiety. Neville Turbit, from Russell Lea, said One Nation promoted the idea that every problem had an easy answer without adverse consequences, adding that such approaches could eventually lead to turmoil before voters returned to more conventional politics.
Immigration was at the centre of the debate. Andrew Caro, from Greenwich, said migration had helped Australia develop from a minor power into a middle power, supported its multicultural character and prevented the population from ageing more rapidly.
He also pointed to migrants’ contribution to universities, agriculture and the workforce, arguing that Australia needed them as much as they needed the country. Other correspondents similarly urged the Labor government not to respond to political pressure by making abrupt changes to visa numbers.
Several writers criticised One Nation’s approach to migration, with one describing the party as xenophobic and divisive. Another said claims by former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce that One Nation’s policies represented what voters wanted were unsubstantiated.
Tony Burke, the immigration minister, was supported by a correspondent who said hospitals would be unable to function without migrant workers, including Filipina nurses. The writer also noted that Australia’s population was made up largely of immigrants and their descendants.
Attention was also drawn to about 34,000 people living for years under temporary protection visas. Mukul Desai, from Hunters Hill, said those without criminal records should be offered permanent residency rather than being required to renew their visas while facing the continuing threat of deportation.
Other contributors said the immigration debate should be separated from race and focused instead on housing, infrastructure and population planning. One writer warned that continued population growth could increase pressure for higher-density development and push up the cost of homes near Sydney’s centre.
The letters also reflected wider concern about the tone of Australian politics. Frederika Steen, from Chapel Hill, said misinformation and hostility were deepening divisions, while Bruce Ingrey, from Rozelle, described the current level of political debate as exceptionally poor.
One correspondent welcomed parliamentary scrutiny of the Exclusive Brethren over alleged links to far-right, pro-Coalition influencers, saying former members had long memories of secrecy and intimidation. The claims were presented as part of a wider argument that political organisations and media campaigns should face greater accountability.
