One Nation’s ‘vibe’ adds to its confusion over migration policy

Having spent 36 years as a social science teacher, I thought I had a reasonable grasp of migration issues. Intrastate, interstate, net and gross migration, various classes of visas, the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility system and even the Colombo Plan found their way into my classrooms. Now I feel I must apologise to my students for having got it all wrong, as One Nation has clarified the issue to the point where I am totally confused (“ Five days on, Hanson still finds it hard to explain migration policy ”, August 28). On the same subject, Waleed Aly is absolutely correct when he says “the devil has convinced us the details don’t matter” ( “One Nation policy all about the vibe”, August 28). I can’t wait for further enlightening policy announcements from “our future prime minister”. Peter Cooper-Southam, Frenchs Forest

Like Waleed Aly, I have been fascinated by the Goldilocks figure of 130,000 net migrants. Assuming some arrive with families of three or four, does this mean they have calculated that only about 60,000 new migrants will be available to fill vacancies in high-demand sectors such as aged care, hospitality and healthcare, given that not all dependents in family units take part in the workforce? The reason Pauline Hanson has not yet been able to arrive at a scientifically defensible migration figure is that population planning and labour demand require deep analysis, projections, assumptions and, more importantly, data gathered from the ground up. Simply plucking numbers from the air as part of a bidding war for votes may attract support because of the “vibe”, but it will not produce workable solutions for the nation. Cultural grievances may be part of the conversation, but they cannot be the sole lens through which complex policy problems are viewed, however tempting that may be. Manbir Singh Kohli, Pemulwuy

Waleed Aly demonstrates very clearly that One Nation’s policy, whatever it is, is a circular argument, designed to make people feel rather than think. This is not news, just a clarification. It’s been obvious for some time that no one in One Nation seems to understand its own policy position, let alone be able to explain it. David Farley tried to calm the waters and explain that we still need migrants in his electorate. George Christensen doesn’t want the cat let out of the bag. Hanson can’t explain, because it can’t be explained. Barnaby Joyce is all about nonsense policy, presented as common sense. The figures in this alleged policy cannot be defined, capped or clarified because that is not the point. The point is that Hanson presents a nebulous group of people to blame for all our woes – “migrants” – regardless of why they arrive or how long they intend to stay. Geoff Nilon, Mascot

Remember when the Reverend Fred Nile was receiving undue coverage with his evangelical rants? Pauline Hanson is pretty much in the same boat, only Fred did no harm and made us laugh with his prayers for rain on the eve of the Mardi Gras. Hanson, on the other hand, has the potential to do considerable harm with her xenophobia and her far right-wing leanings.