About the only repugnant thing possible is a reduction in air traffic movements from what I can see. I don't think a zero net immigration is possible, but is a reasonable target. Would make it much harder to get a 457 visa for pilots. Really can not see any other reason for such a harsh word about this policy, disagreement with it is ok but I to am curious as to why repugnant was used?
One Nation believes in balanced, zero net immigration (subject to review depending on economic conditions) and that coming to Australia is a privilege that must not be undervalued. We reserve the right of discretion in protecting our economy, social cohesion and cultural heritage.
THIS DOES NOT MEAN ZERO IMMIGRATION
'Zero net' means we replace the numbers that leave Australia with new migrants.
The justification for our policy of not exceeding zero net immigration is that environmentally, Australia is near her carrying capacity. Economically, immigration is unsustainable and socially, if continued as is, will lead to a further ethnically divided Australia. Current policy is encouraging large numbers of illegal migrants and it is time Australia, while recognising the contribution made by migrants in the past, sends to the world the message that mass immigration has passed its “use by date.”
It is now critical to develop a population policy for Australia in order to decide immigration numbers rationally and in the best interest of Australians. The immigration policies of the major political parties to this day have proven disastrous, proceeding as if there were no balance of payments problem, no foreign debt and no geographical or environmental constraints to population growth. If continued, such an immigration policy will irreversibly alter the natural and urban environment, economic viability as well as undermining the maintenance and further development of a unique and valuable Australian identity and culture.