As I was never ever going to vote for Pauline Hanson's version of One Nation, I didn't explicitly seek to read her website or her policies. Now Hanson will, along with other senators, make decisions which affect us all so to truly understand what will happen to our country, we need to understand those who will make decisions on our behalf. I felt it was important to see exactly what she said about one of the issues which divides our nation, immigration.

It's important to me because I am the daughter of refugees. My parents, now dead, were Holocaust survivors. Immigration policy matters because it also sets the tone for how Australians view those who seek refuge. This is Hanson's big play.

But before I even got to the link on what she calls Illegal Immigrants & People Smugglers, I noticed this message: "We are putting the media on notice. If you can't report the facts without bias, forget it! We will use social media and other avenues to inform the people of Australia."

Direct to the people! So, can we trust Pauline Hanson's One Nation to report the facts?

I asked three experts what they thought about Hanson's claims on Illegal Immigrants and People Smugglers: Professor Mary Crock, professor of public law at the University of Sydney and a specialist in migration, citizenship and refugee law: Kon Karapanagiotidis, the founder and CEO of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre in Melbourne, Victoria, who was awarded an OAM for his services to asylum seekers and Professor Kim Rubenstein, a citizenship law expert from the ANU College of Law and a public policy fellow at ANU.

They helped me unpick the claims made and the language used by soon-to-be Senator Hanson.

I hate the use of the word illegals. But Kim Rubenstein says: "The terminology of illegal has evolved from the change in the migration law framework where any non-citizen entering Australia without a visa is formally an unlawful non-citizen.

"It represents a tension between Australia sovereignty as a nation to determine who comes in and out of its borders and its international responsibilities to uphold the convention relating to the status of refugees which supports individuals making claims for refugees status."

So, it's not illegal to seek asylum – but the government has done its very best to persuade Australians that coming here for help is unlawful. Hanson's use of the word fits in with government policy.

So what of the other claims? The first is this – in comparison to current Liberal Party policies, Pauline Hanson's position on immigration is not extreme, say both Crock and Karapanagiotidis. In fact, in many areas, the government's position is the same or harsher.

The One Nation website says on its Illegal Immigrants link: "It has been reported that 80% plus arriving by boat or plane don't carry any form of identification . . . anyone arriving without paperwork immediately denied entry and sent back to their last known port before arrival or their homeland."

Mary Crock says: "This is what the government is doing. Many of Hanson's policies find expression in the current government."

Of the demand by Hanson to restrict family reunions, Crock says: "Hanson is behind the times. Under Labor rule, laws around family reunion for refugees were altered so as to make it practically impossible for refugees to sponsor family migration."

And what of the demand by Hanson for Indonesia to impose a minimum 10 year jail term for people-smuggling? Crock asks: "How can she dictate what Indonesia does? The Australian government has pushed Indonesia very hard to criminalise smuggling."

But Crock says that there are other claims on the One Nation website which are irrelevant, for example, Hanson claims "boat people as reported, pay up to $20,000 to people smugglers for passage to Australia". Crock says that sum is probably a slight exaggeration but the more relevant comparison is this: "We have migrants paying $15 million for priority investment visas, so what is [Hanson's] point?"

And as for Hanson's request for Australia to terminate being a signatory to the outdated 1951 UNHCR Refugee Convention, Crock is quick to remind Hanson that the Legacy Caseload Act 2014, removed all reference to international conventions including the Refugee Convention from our migration law. However, Australia has not withdrawn from the Conventions.

But both Crock and Karapanagiotidis agree with Pauline Hanson that the amounts we spend on detention and offshore processing are simply outrageous – but for very different reasons. Hanson, much like her fellow race warriors in Britain's Leave campaign, claim the money spent on refugees should be spent on citizens. Both Crock and Karapanagiotidis say that those seeking refuge should be afforded basic human rights, and that includes the right to health care.

Karapanagiotidis steps away from the Hanson claims to plead with Australia.

"We must be concerned about the fracturing that is happening in our communities. We must call out racism and also recognise that social inequality is giving racism potency.

"We should all be troubled. The fact that One Nation was able to outpoll the Greens in the Senate, it's tapping into something that's problematic, it's a global backlash, interconnected.

"Don't obsess over Hanson. She becomes the easy target and the low-hanging fruit. Our government says exactly the same things, but in a more sophisticated and nuanced way."

We need one nation. Just not the one Pauline Hanson is proposing.

Follow me on Twitter @jennaprice

Facebook.com/jennapricejournalist