Pauline Hanson, One Nation, and the problem with politicians who don’t know where they’re going.
By Jason Gay
Pauline Hanson has been a fixture of Australian politics for almost three decades. Love her or loathe her, the woman has remarkable staying power. Political parties have come and gone, prime ministers have been installed and disposed of with the regularity of a revolving door, and somehow Pauline is still there. The red hair, the unmistakable Queensland accent, and a seemingly endless capacity to say precisely what the political establishment wishes she wouldn’t.
For much of that time, One Nation was treated as something of a political punchline. The party that occasionally made headlines, caused a stir, and generally provided the evening news with something more entertaining than another parliamentary Question Time. Pauline’s political career has certainly had its share of unusual moments. Who could forget Burqagate? Whatever your opinion of the stunt, subtlety has never been her preferred method of communication.
But something rather interesting is happening. The punchline is becoming a serious political contender, and the big boys are getting nervous.
Recent polling has placed One Nation in territory that would have seemed almost unimaginable only a few years ago. An October Newspoll put the party at 28 per cent of the primary vote, just one point behind Labor and eight points ahead of the Coalition. Other polls have recorded somewhat lower figures, but the broader picture is difficult to ignore. One Nation is no longer merely nibbling around the edges of Australian politics. It is competing for a substantial share of the national vote.
And it is not just the Liberal Party that has reason to be concerned. The Nationals are facing challenges in their traditional heartland, while Labor is hardly immune to the wider dissatisfaction. The 2025 Western Australian election demonstrated just how dramatically a governing party’s support can fall, even when it comfortably retains office. Labor’s primary vote fell by 18.5 percentage points. That was not principally a One Nation victory, but it was another reminder that traditional political loyalties are not guaranteed.
So what on earth is going on?
Well, in this wannabe journalist’s humble opinion, the answer is considerably more interesting than Pauline Hanson herself.
For the first time in a long time, a significant number of Australians appear to be responding to a political leader who is offering them something resembling a clear vision of where the country should go.
Not simply another list of policies. Not another carefully focus-grouped collection of promises about hospital beds, electricity rebates and infrastructure announcements. Not another politician explaining how they will manage the country slightly more competently than the other mob.
A destination.
Hanson has a recognisable idea of what she believes Australia should be. It is a vision centred on national identity, sovereignty, immigration, cultural cohesion and a particular understanding of traditional Australian values. It is certainly contested, and translating it into workable government policy presents an entirely different challenge. But the direction she advocates is not particularly difficult to identify.
More importantly, she is not afraid to articulate that direction bluntly, even when it runs contrary to the prevailing political consensus.
That is a significant distinction.
Australian politics has become remarkably good at discussing the how while avoiding the where. How do we make housing more affordable? How do we manage immigration? How do we fund infrastructure? How do we reform taxation? These are important questions, but they should follow more fundamental ones. What sort of country do we want Australia to become? How large should our population be? What should Australian culture look like? What sort of society are we trying to preserve, reform or build?
Without answers to those questions, policies become little more than a collection of disconnected responses to whatever happens to be dominating the news cycle.
And this is where Hanson’s political approach becomes interesting, regardless of whether you agree with her answers.
She is arguing about the destination.
Of course, the usual response is to dismiss One Nation as populist. It is a convenient label, particularly because it allows commentators to describe the movement without necessarily engaging with the concerns of those supporting it. But populism is not, in itself, an explanation of why people are voting a particular way. In its political sense, populism often involves presenting politics as a contest between ordinary people and an out-of-touch elite. That description might tell us something about Hanson’s rhetoric, but it does not tell us whether the underlying concerns of her voters are legitimate.
In a representative democracy, that distinction matters enormously.
If substantial numbers of Australians believe their concerns about immigration, housing, cultural change, economic security or national identity are being ignored, those concerns do not become irrelevant simply because an unconventional politician has chosen to articulate them. Nor does public support automatically make every proposed solution sensible. Both propositions can be true.
Perhaps the more useful question is why so many people believe the traditional parties have stopped listening.
For decades, our political system operated on the assumption that most Australians would ultimately choose between Labor and the Coalition. The parties differed in philosophy and priorities, but voters generally knew which side they belonged to. Increasingly, those old loyalties appear less reliable. Some voters are looking elsewhere, not merely because they dislike the government of the day, but because they are questioning the broader direction in which the country is heading.
Hanson has managed to position herself within that dissatisfaction. Her supporters see someone prepared to challenge assumptions that other politicians either accept or approach with extraordinary caution. Her critics see a politician offering overly simplistic answers to complicated problems, sometimes at the expense of vulnerable communities. Both perspectives deserve examination. The existence of a clear vision does not establish that it is a good one.
And that brings us to the real lesson for the major parties.
The answer to One Nation’s rise cannot simply be another round of political name-calling, nor can it be an attempt to imitate every provocative statement Hanson makes. If Labor and the Coalition believe her vision for Australia is wrong, they need to explain what their alternative vision actually is.
What is Labor’s Australia supposed to look like in fifty years? What is the Coalition’s? Beyond the next budget, the next election and the next announcement, what is the destination? What are the principles that guide their decisions when circumstances become difficult? What kind of national culture, economy and society do they want future generations to inherit?
These are the questions I suspect more Australians want their political leaders to answer.
A clear national vision does not need to be universally popular. In a democracy, it almost certainly will not be. But it does need to be intelligible. Voters should be able to understand not merely what a political party proposes to do, but why those proposals contribute to the future it hopes to create.
This is not an argument that Hanson has discovered the perfect blueprint for Australia. Far from it. A vision can be incomplete, unrealistic or fundamentally misguided. Nor is political bluntness necessarily a virtue. Sometimes a politician who says exactly what they think is being refreshingly candid. Sometimes they are simply demonstrating why careful consideration is a useful thing.
But political communication is about more than polish, and leadership is about more than competent administration. A leader must be able to describe a future that people can understand, assess and, if they choose, support.
At present, One Nation’s polling suggests that a considerable number of Australians are at least willing to consider the future Hanson is describing. Whether that support translates into lasting electoral success remains to be seen. Polling is not an election, and enthusiasm for an outsider is not the same thing as confidence in their ability to govern.
Nevertheless, the warning to the established parties is worth taking seriously.
You cannot spend years avoiding fundamental questions about Australia’s direction and then express surprise when someone else starts answering them. You cannot assume that voters will remain loyal simply because they always have. And you cannot expect people to be inspired by a political program that amounts to little more than promising to manage the present.
Politics takes all types. The polished administrator, the careful negotiator, the idealist, the reformer, the provocateur and, occasionally, the Queensland senator with a flair for parliamentary theatre.
There is an old saying that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Well, in the land of the aimless, perhaps the redhead with half a plan is queen.
Leave a Reply