We put Pauline Hanson's biggest claims to the experts. Here's the verdict

Hanson's speech delivered lots of soundbites all at once and they all sounded perfectly valid. I went to the experts to ask for help. I could write a book but no time.

Alan Gamlen runs ANU's Migration Hub and has researched human migration and mobility for decades. This is a man who loves numbers and is highly familiar with them. I asked him if immigration is out of control? Gamlen says our population trend has not yet recovered from the COVID years. The first three years of the Albanese government were years of recovery when we had next to no migration.

"And the issue is not mass migration or bad migration policy, it's volatility caused by the biggest disruption to migration and mobility in human history ... the total number of migrant arrivals to Australia since December 2019 is far, far lower than earlier predictions."

Departures are also lower and unlike arrivals, they have not recovered. Both Coalition and Labor governments gave extensions during and after the pandemic and those extensions are not yet due to expire.

Now, has Labor allowed mass immigration in the middle of a housing crisis? Again Gamlen says no: "The migration settings are pretty much the same as the ones the Coalition set in place."

What about the impact on housing?

Michael Fotheringham, former managing director of AHURI, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, was blunt:

"Immigration does not impact housing. We did a big experiment. It was called the pandemic. We stopped migration for two years. House prices did not fall."

House prices did not fall.

Now, how to discuss claims about energy without losing one's mind. Tough one. I asked a renewables expert on what he thought of Hanson's claims. Saul Griffith, founder of Rewiring Australia and Rewiring America, an engineer and entrepreneur, has the facts.

What about the claim that renewables don't compete with oil?

Griffith: "Obviously they do ... an EV in Australia costs 2c/km run on rooftop solar and 10c/km from the grid. Compare this to 20-25c/km for similarly sized oil powered cars."

Plus so many of us have solar on the roof and will soon benefit from three free hours a day if we have smart meters.

Does using agricultural land for solar and wind destroy it?

Griffith explains most studies show that putting solar energy architecture and agriculture on the same land increases both farm productivity and income.

He suggests: "There could be a big win here for the nation's farmers but no government explained the vision nor changed the energy markets to enable farmers to benefit from the contributions they can make. Farmers already sell sunshine to latte-sipping soft-cocked city slickers (in the form of produce grown with sunshine) and renewables are the opportunity for them to do more of that."

What about nuclear? Here Griffith's response is crystal clear: "Technically one shouldn't be a blanket no on nuclear energy. It can be zero-emission, and it can be prolific. People haven't figured out how to make it cheap, nor how to dispose of the waste safely, and the real politic of it is that no one wants it anywhere near their backyard.

"So it is a very clear delay tactic for fossil-aligned political parties to advocate for nuclear because it's slow, bureaucratic and unpopular which gives them time and the excuse to burn more fossil fuels."

Now what about investment? I had to ask so many people about Hanson's claims about capital gains tax cohorts to get an answer.

Here's her mind-boggling claim where she threw a bunch of numbers out into the ether. She said that young people make income out of assets by doing up an apartment and then selling it. So far, so fine. But then she said: "So, the largest capital gains cohort is younger. There are now over 215,000 under-35-year-olds who will see less income from their investments."

So this took me some time and into the annals of the Reserve Bank of Australia. I was guided by a very kind stranger to the RBA's May bulletin. It shows very clearly that the biggest chunk of investors are old people. Like my age. Over 60.

Food insecurity is a shocking issue. On any Facebook suburb page, you'll see so many people asking for places they might find free food (and often met with kindness and generosity). But Hanson's attempts to use the Salvation Army's figures to make it sound like a third of Australian children go to school hungry is incorrect. I called the Salvation Army. The survey results are from those who had used their emergency relief services. The figures are appalling - but we don't need them made any worse than they already are.

And what about childcare workers not needing any training? I asked Georgie Dent, CEO of The Parenthood, what she thought.

" 'I managed' is a memory, not a policy ... Hanson is describing the Australia she raised her kids in, not the one families are living in now." Fact.

She points out that people caring for our kids (and grandkids!) aren't babysitters (because, you know, when the going gets tough we turn to Bluey).

"These are skilled professionals doing complex, demanding work: shaping language, behaviour and emotional development in the years that build the foundations for life, with the evidence showing children who attend quality early learning carry the benefits for decades."

Here's the best bit: "Qualifications aren't paperwork, they're what keep children safe, supported and learning at the most important stage of their development."

Now to one close to home. Hanson's rudeness will always rise up when she is in trouble. That should concern everyone who wants transparency from their politicians. The complete disrespect shown to stellar Guardian journalist Sarah Martin gives a clear indication that Hanson gets shitty when she is being scrutinised.

Martin reported earlier this year that Hanson's Tasmania-based daughter has been employed as a senior adviser to a NSW. senator, in a taxpayer-funded role worth as much as $180,000 a year. It's perfectly valid to ask questions about how the boss's daughter got that gig. But beware of a boss who doubles down when asked questions, such as Donald Trump.

Beware.