Swirling in the chaos of Australian politics, few voices cut through the noise like One Nation's. Led by the unapologetic Pauline Hanson and backed by senators like Malcolm Roberts, the party has long championed the everyday Aussie against what they see as elite-driven agendas. Their latest push, the reintroduction of the Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill on November 26, 2025, demands a national vote on adopting zero net migration for five years. But let's take it a step further: this shouldn't just be a non-binding plebiscite. It deserves the full weight of a constitutional referendum, akin to the one we held on the Voice to Parliament in 2023. If we're serious about democracy, immigration, a force reshaping our nation's very identity, demands no less. And yes, let's address the elephant in the room: unchecked migration, particularly from authoritarian regimes like China, risks diluting our cultural foundations, including the hard-won recognition of Aboriginal rights, in ways that could echo the repressive playbook of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
One Nation isn't the villain the mainstream media paints them as. Far from it. They're the underdogs calling out a system where politicians in Canberra decide Australia's demographic destiny without asking the people who foot the bill. Roberts nailed it in his Senate speech: "The first duty of a parliamentary representative is to listen to the people's masters." The bill proposes a straightforward question: "Do you support a zero net migration policy for a period of five years?" Zero net means arrivals equal departures, no explosive population growth, just a breather to let infrastructure, housing, and services catch up. This isn't anti-immigration; it's anti-mass immigration. As Roberts emphasised, One Nation supports skilled, assimilable migrants who enrich our society, not the flood that's strained our hospitals, schools, and roads under successive governments.
Critics from the Liberals, Labor, Greens, and independents dismissed it as "inappropriate" or "divisive," echoing the same tired lines from 2018 when the bill first flopped. Liberal Senator Paul Scarr called migration "extraordinarily complicated," while Greens Senator David Shoebridge hurled insults like "reheated One Nation vomit of division." Independent Fatima Payman invoked economic crises to sideline the debate, and Tasmanian Independent Tammy Tyrrell romanticised migrants as the "backbone" of our economy. But if migration is so vital and multifaceted, why not trust the Australian people with a say? After all, we trusted them with the Voice referendum, a deeply divisive issue about embedding an Indigenous advisory body in the Constitution. That vote cost millions, mobilised the nation, and ultimately failed with 60% opposing it. If we can referendum something as profound as constitutional recognition for First Nations people, why is immigration off-limits?
Immigration isn't just numbers; it's existential. Australia's permanent migration program for 2025–26 is capped at 185,000 places, with net overseas migration projected around 335,000 for the year to June 2025, trending down slightly but still far above pre-pandemic levels. That's not sustainable in a country grappling with housing shortages and cost-of-living pressures. But dig deeper: among the top source countries, China stands out. As of June 2023, over 655,000 Chinese-born people called Australia home, a 51.7% jump from a decade earlier. That's not a conspiracy; it's data from the Department of Home Affairs. While many integrate and contribute, the sheer scale raises questions about cultural shifts. What happens if trends continue and Australia edges toward a majority-Asian demographic, with China as a dominant influence?
Here's where it gets uncomfortable, but necessary: a CCP-dominated society wouldn't prioritise Aboriginal rights or reconciliation. The Chinese Communist Party's track record is clear, suppressing minorities like the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, erasing Tibetan culture, and quashing dissent in Hong Kong. Imagine a future where Mandarin eclipses English in public life, and Beijing's soft power, through investments, student influxes, and diaspora influence, steers our politics. Would Sorry Day survive? Would Native Title claims hold up against foreign-backed developments? Historical ties between Chinese migrants and Indigenous Australians are complex; early Chinese laborers on the goldfields formed alliances and even intermarried with Aboriginal communities, sharing experiences of colonial exclusion. Yet, modern CCP ideology views ethnic minorities as threats to "harmony," not partners in justice. If Australia becomes a de facto extension of that worldview, the "Aboriginal thing," as some might crudely put it, could indeed fade into irrelevance, overshadowed by a regime that prioritises state control over cultural preservation.
This isn't fear-mongering; it's foresight. One Nation's bill offers a pause, a five-year reset to assess and assimilate. But a plebiscite alone, non-binding and easily ignored, isn't enough. We need a referendum to enshrine public consent in how we manage migration levels, making it harder for elites to override the will of the people. The Voice vote proved Australians can handle tough conversations: turnout was high, debate was fierce, and the outcome respected. Immigration merits the same. Polls consistently show public unease, over 60% want lower levels, per various surveys. Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie admitted migration is "too high," yet her party rejected the bill. If protests on the streets are already a "vote," as she claimed, why not formalise it?
Sceptics like Payman argue migration doesn't drive housing woes (pointing to COVID-era price surges with low growth) and that we'd collapse without foreign workers in aged care or construction. Shoebridge blames TAFE privatisation for skills shortages, not migrants. Valid critiques, but they dodge the core: who decides? In a democracy, it should be us, not bureaucrats or big business lobbying for cheap labour. One Nation's stance empowers the forgotten majority, the regional workers, suburban families, and Indigenous communities bearing the brunt of rapid change.
Australia stands at a crossroads. Do we let unchecked migration redefine us, potentially importing ideologies that clash with our values of fairness and mateship? Or do we reclaim control through a referendum, ensuring our future reflects the people's voice? One Nation is right to fight for this; they're not divisive, they're democratic. It's time to go beyond the bill and demand a binding vote. Because if we can referendum the Voice, we can certainly do it for the very soul of our nation. Let's make Australia sovereign again!