One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has reignited Australia’s immigration debate after endorsing the concept of “mass deportations” during a visit to the United Kingdom, where she met hard-right political figures and toured communities she argues illustrate the consequences of uncontrolled migration.

The comments came during a special edition of Seven’s Spotlight, which followed Senator Hanson through Britain as she met Restore Britain leader Rupert Lowe, appeared alongside controversial activist Tommy Robinson and attended conservative political events.

When presented with Restore Britain’s proposal for large-scale deportations, Hanson made clear she believed Australia should consider similar policies.

Asked whether the concept of mass deportation appealed to her, Hanson replied: “I love it,” adding that Australia and the British movement were “very much on the same page”. She indicated any Australian policy would focus on people who were unlawfully remaining in the country after their visas had expired or whose refugee claims had failed, although she did not outline detailed implementation plans.

Restore Britain, led by former British MP Rupert Lowe, has made mass deportations one of its signature policies. During the meeting, Lowe handed Hanson a copy of the party’s migration platform, describing it as a blueprint Australia could adapt.

Throughout the documentary, Hanson repeatedly argued Australia should adopt a tougher immigration system and strengthen border enforcement to discourage unlawful migration.

She claimed people who arrive without valid documentation or remain after their visas expire should be removed more quickly, saying existing deportation processes are too slow and ineffective.

The UK visit also saw Hanson spend time with Tommy Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. Robinson is one of Britain’s most controversial political activists and has multiple criminal convictions, including offences relating to assault, fraud and contempt of court.

The pair toured Luton and other areas with large migrant communities while discussing immigration, multiculturalism and Islam. Robinson repeatedly criticised Britain’s migration policies during the visit, while Hanson argued Australia should learn from what she described as Britain’s mistakes.

One of the most heated moments occurred when Robinson clashed with veteran Australian journalist Liam Bartlett after being questioned about his criminal history.

Robinson angrily rejected suggestions his convictions undermined his credibility, accusing mainstream media organisations of misrepresenting him and his political movement. The confrontation became one of the most widely discussed scenes from the television special.

Hanson’s comments are the latest in a series of controversial statements made during her European trip.

Earlier appearances included a podcast interview with Robinson in which she criticised Australia’s immigration policies, questioned multiculturalism and revisited long-held views on assimilation and national identity. Those remarks attracted widespread criticism from Labor, the Greens and community leaders.

Her visit also included an appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in London, where she argued Western countries needed stronger immigration controls and criticised what she described as political correctness surrounding migration debates.

The latest endorsement of mass deportations immediately prompted fresh political criticism back home.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese accused Hanson of talking Australia down while travelling overseas, while Labor ministers argued her rhetoric risked damaging Australia’s multicultural reputation.

The Coalition also distanced itself from the proposal.

Liberal National MP Garth Hamilton said immigration should be carefully managed to reflect Australia’s housing capacity and labour market needs but rejected adopting sweeping mass deportation policies. He said migrants who follow Australia’s laws make valuable contributions to regional communities and should not be unfairly targeted by political rhetoric.

The debate has also exposed differences between One Nation’s position and Australia’s existing immigration framework.

Australian law already provides mechanisms for removing people who no longer have a lawful right to remain in the country. Individuals whose visas expire without renewal, whose refugee applications have been finally rejected, or who fail character tests under the Migration Act may be detained and deported following established legal processes.

What Hanson has suggested goes beyond routine immigration enforcement by embracing the language of “mass deportations” popularised by several emerging right-wing political movements overseas.

While she has consistently referred to illegal migrants rather than lawful permanent residents or Australian citizens, critics argue the slogan itself risks creating confusion over exactly who would be affected and how such a policy could operate in practice.

Immigration has become one of Australia’s most politically contested issues following sustained population growth after the pandemic, housing shortages, infrastructure pressures and concerns about the pace of migration.

The Albanese Government has introduced a series of migration reforms aimed at reducing net overseas migration from recent record highs while tightening visa integrity measures and addressing exploitation within the international education sector.

At the same time, the government has continued to maintain Australia’s long-standing policy of mandatory detention and removal for unlawful non-citizens, meaning deportation itself is not new. The political disagreement instead centres on the scale, speed and rhetoric surrounding enforcement.

One Nation has argued Australia should adopt significantly tougher measures to deter illegal migration and remove people who remain unlawfully.

The party has previously proposed deporting tens of thousands of illegal migrants, strengthening border controls and substantially reducing immigration levels overall.

Supporters say stronger deportation policies would reinforce public confidence in Australia’s migration system and discourage visa overstays.

Opponents argue Australia’s existing legal framework already allows deportation where appropriate and warn that slogans centred on mass removals risk inflaming community tensions without addressing the practical complexity of immigration enforcement.

Legal experts also note that every deportation decision must comply with Australian law, international treaty obligations and procedural fairness requirements. Cases often involve appeals, judicial review, family considerations, refugee protections and human rights obligations, making large-scale removals far more complex than political slogans may suggest.

Hanson has dismissed criticism of her UK visit, arguing she travelled overseas specifically to study how other countries are responding to migration pressures.

She maintains Australians are increasingly concerned about immigration levels and believes politicians should be willing to discuss tougher policies without fear of political backlash.

Whether her endorsement of UK-style mass deportations ultimately shifts Australia’s broader political debate remains uncertain.

However, the remarks have once again placed immigration, border security and multiculturalism at the centre of national political discussion as parties position themselves ahead of future electoral contests.