Opposition Leader Angus Taylor has moved to draw a clear distinction between the Coalition’s immigration policy and comments made by One Nation leader Pauline Hanson on race and migration, insisting Australians should be judged by their “character and conduct” rather than their ethnicity, religion or country of origin.

Taylor’s comments come amid renewed debate over immigration, multiculturalism and Australia’s national identity, issues that have become increasingly prominent following the Coalition’s leadership change and One Nation’s growing influence in national political discussions.

While rejecting Hanson’s rhetoric on race, Taylor maintained that Australia’s migration program had expanded beyond sustainable levels and required significant reform.

“Migration has been too high and the standards have been too low,” Taylor said, arguing that the focus should instead be on ensuring newcomers embrace Australian values and contribute positively to the country regardless of their background.

The Opposition Leader said race, religion and ethnicity should not determine a person’s opportunity to migrate to Australia. Instead, he argued that governments should assess applicants according to their commitment to Australia’s democratic institutions, respect for the rule of law and willingness to integrate into Australian society.

“I judge people by their character and conduct,” Taylor said, emphasising that Australia’s immigration system should remain non-discriminatory while applying stronger standards to everyone equally.

The remarks were widely interpreted as an attempt to distance the Liberal Party from Pauline Hanson’s latest comments while maintaining the Coalition’s tougher position on immigration compared with the Albanese government.

Immigration has emerged as one of Taylor’s signature policy priorities since becoming Opposition Leader earlier this year.

Following his election as Liberal leader, Taylor pledged to place Australia’s interests “at the centre” of immigration policy, arguing that migration levels should better reflect housing availability, infrastructure capacity and labour market needs. He has repeatedly called for lower migration while insisting Australia should continue welcoming skilled migrants who share the country’s values.

The Coalition has argued that record migration levels under the Albanese government have contributed to pressure on housing affordability, rental markets, transport infrastructure and essential public services.

Taylor has previously criticised Labor’s migration settings, claiming the government allowed population growth to outpace Australia’s ability to build homes and expand infrastructure.

However, unlike One Nation, the Coalition has generally framed the issue around planning, economic capacity and national cohesion rather than race or ethnicity.

Pauline Hanson has long advocated substantially reducing immigration and has frequently linked migration policy to broader debates about multiculturalism, national identity and social integration. Her comments have often generated political controversy and attracted criticism from both Labor and Liberal politicians over many years.

Taylor’s latest remarks indicate the Coalition is seeking to maintain a clear distinction between its own policy platform and One Nation’s approach, despite both parties advocating lower migration than the current government.

The issue carries particular political significance as One Nation continues attracting support from conservative voters dissatisfied with both major parties.

Recent opinion polling has suggested the Coalition faces increasing competition from One Nation in parts of regional Australia and outer metropolitan areas, prompting renewed debate over how firmly Liberal leaders should respond to Hanson’s policy proposals and public statements.

Political analysts say Taylor faces a delicate balancing act.

On one hand, the Coalition wants to present itself as the strongest alternative to Labor on issues such as immigration, border security and national identity. On the other, it must reassure moderate voters that its policies differ fundamentally from the rhetoric sometimes associated with One Nation.

That balancing act was evident in Taylor’s emphasis on a values-based immigration framework.

Rather than proposing migration rules based on nationality, race or religion, he argued that Australia’s immigration program should identify applicants who are committed to democratic values, respect for Australian laws and social cohesion.

Supporters of values-based migration argue such an approach strengthens social integration by encouraging civic participation and shared responsibilities. Critics, however, question how concepts such as “Australian values” should be defined and consistently applied in migration decisions.

Successive Australian governments have generally maintained that migration decisions should be made without discrimination based on race or religion, while allowing consideration of factors such as security assessments, health requirements, character tests and economic contribution.

The Migration Act already contains character provisions allowing visas to be refused or cancelled where applicants present serious criminal, security or public safety concerns.

The Albanese government has defended Australia’s current migration framework, arguing that migration remains essential for addressing skills shortages, supporting economic growth and offsetting demographic ageing. Ministers have acknowledged that migration levels increased following the reopening of international borders but have said they are now returning to more sustainable levels as temporary post-pandemic demand eases.

Labor has also accused the Coalition of oversimplifying the causes of Australia’s housing affordability challenges, arguing that planning restrictions, construction costs and housing supply constraints play a larger role than migration alone.

Taylor nevertheless maintains that migration policy must better reflect Australia’s capacity to accommodate population growth.

He argues that reducing net overseas migration while improving screening standards would relieve pressure on housing, infrastructure and public services without undermining Australia’s long-standing commitment to welcoming migrants from diverse backgrounds.

The debate highlights one of the defining political questions facing Australia as population growth continues to reshape the economy.

Business groups frequently advocate strong migration programs to address persistent labour shortages across healthcare, construction, agriculture and technology. At the same time, many local communities have expressed concern about housing shortages, congestion and pressure on essential services.

Finding the balance between economic needs and community capacity has become one of the central policy challenges confronting governments of every political persuasion.

Taylor’s latest intervention suggests the Coalition intends to campaign on tighter migration controls while continuing to reject race-based approaches.

By stressing that people should be judged according to their character, conduct and commitment to Australian values, the Opposition Leader is seeking to position the Coalition as offering a firmer immigration policy than Labor without embracing the more controversial language that has often characterised debates surrounding One Nation.

Whether that distinction proves politically effective will become clearer as immigration remains one of the most closely contested issues in Australian federal politics ahead of future parliamentary debates and election campaigns.