ONE NATION’S MOMENTUM IS GROWING—AND AUSTRALIA’S MAJOR PARTIES ARE STARTING TO TAKE NOTICE. u1
One Nation’s Growing Momentum Is Forcing Australia’s Major Parties to Rethink Their Political Strategy
For much of the past three decades, Australia’s major political parties shared an assumption about Pauline Hanson and One Nation.
The party would periodically surge whenever public frustration with the political establishment intensified, attract headlines for several months, perform strongly enough to influence debate, and then gradually retreat as Labor and the Coalition reasserted their dominance.
That cycle appeared almost predictable.
But Australia’s political landscape is changing—and so, too, is the calculation surrounding One Nation.
Months of improving polling, stronger fundraising, expanding media attention, and renewed public frustration over the cost of living, housing affordability, migration, and government performance have once again placed Pauline Hanson at the center of Australia’s political conversation.
This time, however, the response from Australia’s major parties suggests something different.
Rather than dismissing One Nation as a temporary protest movement, senior political figures are beginning to treat the party as a genuine electoral challenge capable of influencing not only individual seats but the broader direction of conservative politics.
That shift became particularly visible after Opposition Leader Angus Taylor delivered one of his strongest public criticisms of Hanson in recent months, arguing that One Nation is “not fit to govern” and claiming the party lacks a credible plan for Australia’s future.
On the surface, the remarks resembled routine political criticism.
Look more closely, however, and they reveal something more significant.
Political parties rarely devote valuable campaign time attacking opponents they believe pose no meaningful threat.
Instead, they concentrate their fire where they believe votes are genuinely at risk.
That alone says a great deal about how One Nation is now being viewed inside Australia’s political establishment.
A Movement That Refuses to Disappear
Few political figures in modern Australian history have repeatedly defied expectations quite like Pauline Hanson.
Since first entering Parliament in the 1990s, Hanson has survived electoral defeats, leadership changes, internal party disputes, relentless criticism, and repeated predictions that her political career had reached its end.
Yet every few years she returns to national prominence.
Each new political cycle seems to produce another moment when observers ask whether Hanson has become politically relevant once again.
Increasingly, the answer appears to be yes.
Supporters argue that her longevity reflects consistency.
While governments, party leaders, and political priorities have changed repeatedly over nearly three decades, Hanson has largely maintained the same focus on immigration, border security, national identity, regional Australia, manufacturing, and government accountability.
For many voters frustrated with traditional politics, consistency has become a political asset.
Critics view the same record differently.
They argue Hanson has spent decades promoting divisive politics while offering simplified solutions to problems that require far more complex policy responses.
They contend that consistency alone should not be confused with effective governance.
Both perspectives continue to define Australia’s debate over One Nation.
Why Angus Taylor’s Comments Matter
Angus Taylor’s criticism attracted attention not because politicians attacking each other is unusual.
It attracted attention because of what it implied.
Calling One Nation “not fit to govern” may appear obvious given Australia’s political system, where neither Labor nor the Coalition expects Hanson to become Prime Minister.
Yet governing is not the immediate issue.
Influence is.
Smaller parties do not need to form government to reshape national politics.
They only need enough support to pressure larger parties into responding.
That is precisely how political influence often develops.
Throughout democratic history, outsider movements have frequently shifted national debates without ever winning executive office.
Issues once regarded as fringe gradually enter mainstream political discussion because major parties begin responding to voter concerns that smaller parties successfully identify.
Australia has witnessed this pattern before.
The growing attention being paid to One Nation suggests some political strategists believe it may be happening again.
Frustration Creates Opportunity
One Nation’s recent momentum has not emerged in isolation.
It reflects a broader political environment marked by public dissatisfaction.
Across Australia, households continue confronting high grocery prices, expensive housing, elevated mortgage repayments, rising insurance costs, and ongoing pressure from electricity bills.
While economic indicators have improved in several areas, many families continue judging the economy through their own household budgets rather than national statistics.
This distinction is politically important.
Governments often point to inflation moderating, employment remaining relatively strong, or economic growth continuing.
Voters often ask a much simpler question.
“Can I afford life more comfortably than I could a few years ago?”
When increasing numbers answer “no,” political alternatives naturally receive greater attention.
That environment benefits parties capable of presenting themselves as challengers to the political establishment.
One Nation has consistently attempted to occupy precisely that position.
Veteran Observers See a Different Political Climate
Veteran political columnist Dez Houghton recently argued that Australians should stop underestimating Pauline Hanson.
According to Houghton, One Nation’s current momentum reflects frustrations that have accumulated over many years rather than merely responding to recent political events.
His assessment deserves consideration.
Political movements rarely survive for nearly thirty years through media attention alone.
They survive because a segment of the electorate continues believing their concerns remain insufficiently addressed by mainstream politics.
Whether those concerns involve immigration, housing affordability, energy costs, taxation, or national identity, Hanson has repeatedly found audiences willing to listen.
Houghton described her as a political survivor.
Few would dispute that characterization.
Survival itself, however, is only part of the story.
The more important question is whether survival is now evolving into renewed influence.
Fundraising Signals Organizational Growth
Campaign financing rarely generates public excitement.
Inside politics, however, fundraising often provides one of the clearest indicators of organizational strength.
According to reports referenced during Houghton’s interview, One Nation’s recent fundraising campaigns generated substantial financial support.
Money does not guarantee electoral success.
It does, however, determine how effectively parties communicate with voters.
Campaign advertising.
Digital outreach.
Candidate recruitment.
Policy development.
Volunteer coordination.
Election-day operations.
All depend heavily upon financial resources.
If One Nation continues expanding its fundraising capacity, its ability to compete nationally also increases.
That possibility alone forces larger parties to take notice.
The Barnaby Joyce Factor
Another development attracting considerable attention has been the willingness of former Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce to publicly engage with Pauline Hanson.
Joyce has not joined One Nation, nor has he formally aligned himself with the party.
Nevertheless, political symbolism matters.
Among many rural and regional Australians, Joyce remains one of the country’s most recognizable conservative politicians.
Public interactions between respected conservative figures and Hanson inevitably influence perceptions.
Supporters interpret such engagement as evidence that Hanson is becoming increasingly accepted within broader conservative discussions.
Critics argue occasional cooperation should not be mistaken for political alliance.
Both interpretations now coexist.
National Security and Immigration Remain Central
Immigration continues shaping Australian political debate.
Supporters of One Nation argue recent national security concerns reinforce long-standing warnings Hanson has made regarding border security and migration policy.
Critics strongly reject drawing broad political conclusions from individual criminal incidents, arguing immigration policy should be based upon comprehensive evidence rather than isolated events.
This disagreement reflects a much broader divide visible throughout Western democracies.
Questions surrounding migration increasingly overlap with discussions about housing supply, infrastructure, labour markets, social cohesion, and national identity.
Australia is experiencing many of the same debates seen across Europe, North America, and the United Kingdom.
A More Politically Engaged Public
Perhaps one of the most interesting developments identified by Houghton involves public engagement itself.
Political conversations appear more common today than they were several years ago.
Australians increasingly debate housing.
Taxes.
Migration.
Energy prices.
Healthcare.
Education.
Government spending.
Questions of national identity.
Whether this represents healthier democratic participation or growing political polarization depends largely upon perspective.
Either way, fewer Australians appear willing simply to ignore politics.
That heightened engagement creates greater opportunities for smaller parties capable of attracting public attention.
Education Joins the Political Battlefield
The discussion also extended beyond traditional election issues.
Houghton criticized restrictions surrounding publication of ATAR performance data, arguing parents deserve greater transparency regarding school performance.
Supporters believe increased disclosure improves accountability.
Opponents warn public league tables risk oversimplifying educational outcomes while disadvantaging schools serving more challenging communities.
Although separate from immigration or cost-of-living debates, the discussion illustrates how education itself has become increasingly politicized.
Strategic Dilemmas for Both Major Parties
Both Labor and the Coalition now face increasingly complex political calculations.
Labor must defend its record while convincing voters that economic conditions are improving despite continued household pressures.
The Coalition must rebuild support without allowing conservative voters to drift toward One Nation.
That challenge explains why Angus Taylor’s criticism carries strategic significance.
By questioning One Nation’s governing credentials, the Coalition appears attempting to reassure dissatisfied conservative voters while arguing they need not abandon the Liberal Party.
Labor faces its own dilemma.
Directly attacking Hanson risks elevating her profile.
Ignoring her risks allowing continued electoral growth among frustrated voters seeking alternatives.
History suggests outsider movements often benefit when larger parties struggle to determine the most effective response.
My Professional Perspective
Having covered Australian politics for more than three decades, I believe the most revealing aspect of One Nation’s current momentum is not whether Pauline Hanson could ever become Prime Minister.
Australia’s parliamentary system makes that highly improbable.
The real story is influence.
Throughout democratic history, smaller political parties have often exercised power disproportionate to their parliamentary numbers.
They shape debate.
They force larger parties to modify policies.
They redefine campaign priorities.
They influence coalition negotiations.
One Nation has performed this role before.
The question now is whether it is entering another period in which its influence once again exceeds its electoral representation.
Another overlooked point concerns voter psychology.
Many political analysts assume dissatisfied voters eventually return to one of the major parties.
Increasingly, evidence across many democracies suggests that assumption deserves re-examination.
Public trust in traditional institutions—including governments, political parties, media organizations, and bureaucracies—has weakened in many countries.
When trust declines, consistency becomes valuable.
Supporters frequently describe Hanson as consistent.
Critics describe her as unchanging.
Ironically, both observations identify the same characteristic.
Whether consistency ultimately attracts enough voters remains uncertain.
But in an era when many politicians are accused of constantly shifting positions, consistency itself has become a political message.
Finally, this debate extends well beyond Pauline Hanson personally.
It reflects deeper questions confronting Australian democracy.
How effectively do major parties respond to public frustration?
How should governments balance economic growth with housing affordability?
What level of immigration best serves Australia’s long-term interests?
How much influence should outsider movements have over national policy?
These questions will not disappear after one election.
They are likely to shape Australian politics for years to come.
Conclusion
One Nation’s renewed momentum does not necessarily mean Australia is about to experience a political revolution.
Australia’s electoral system, preferential voting arrangements, and longstanding two-party competition continue making government formation difficult for smaller parties.
Yet electoral success is not the only measure of political importance.
Influence often matters just as much.
Recent polling, fundraising success, growing media attention, and increasingly direct attacks from major political opponents all suggest One Nation has once again become a significant factor in Australia’s political landscape.
Whether that momentum continues, plateaus, or fades will depend on economic conditions, campaign performance, and voter priorities over the coming months.
What appears increasingly clear, however, is that Australia’s major parties are no longer behaving as though Pauline Hanson can simply be ignored.
After nearly thirty years in public life, she has once again positioned herself at the center of some of the country’s most consequential political debates.
The question facing Australians is no longer whether One Nation exists on the political margins.
It is whether its growing influence will reshape the policies of the parties that have governed Australia for generations.
The answer may prove to be one of the defining stories of the next federal election.
