Pauline Hanson, leader of the One Nation party, said her call to ban migration from radical Islamic countries is not a version of the historic White Australia policy [1].
The statement comes as the One Nation party seeks to redefine national security and border control through the lens of religious and political ideology rather than race. By distancing herself from the White Australia policy, Hanson attempts to frame her proposals as targeted security measures instead of broad racial exclusions.
Speaking at a business breakfast in Perth, Western Australia, on June 24, 2026, Hanson said she rejected comparisons between her current platform and the racially based policies of the past [1], [2]. She specifically advocated for a ban on migration from countries she described as "radical Islamic" [1].
During the event, Hanson said she was angry toward suggestions that her stance amounted to a revival of the former policy [1]. The White Australia policy was a set of historical customs and laws designed to forbid non-European immigration to Australia, a legacy that Hanson has occasionally linked to current migration issues in other forums [3].
Despite those previous comments, the Perth address focused on the distinction between racial exclusion and what she presents as a necessary response to religious radicalism [1]. Hanson said her goals are centered on protecting the nation from specific geopolitical threats rather than implementing a race-based quota [1].
The debate over these proposals highlights a continuing tension in Australian politics regarding the balance between multiculturalism and national security. While critics argue that targeting specific regions or religions mimics the exclusionary nature of previous eras, Hanson said her approach is a distinct and necessary strategy for the modern era [1], [2].
“Pauline Hanson said her call to ban migration from radical Islamic countries is not a version of the historic White Australia policy.”
This rhetorical shift represents an attempt by One Nation to pivot from racial arguments to ideological ones, which may be an effort to broaden the party's appeal or avoid legal and social stigmas associated with the White Australia policy. By framing migration restrictions as a security necessity against 'radical' elements, the party is attempting to align its platform with global trends of securitized migration control.
