“Something Doesn’t Feel Right”: Is One Nation’s Rise a Political Earthquake—or a Warning Signal for Australia’s Major Parties?

Australian politics has entered another period of intense uncertainty, and a growing debate is emerging over whether the country’s traditional political landscape is beginning to fracture.

Recent opinion polling and increasing public dissatisfaction over the cost of living, housing affordability, immigration, and energy prices have renewed attention on the electoral prospects of Pauline Hanson and her party, One Nation. While Australia has long been dominated by the two major political blocs—the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal–National Coalition—some recent polling suggests that dissatisfaction with both could create opportunities for minor parties and independents.

Whether that amounts to the collapse of Australia’s two-party system remains highly contested. However, there is little disagreement that voters are becoming increasingly volatile and less loyal than in previous decades.

The question now confronting political strategists is not simply whether One Nation can increase its vote share—but whether Australia’s entire electoral landscape is entering a new era.

---

A Political Mood That Has Been Building for Years

Political shifts rarely happen overnight.

Long before recent polling attracted headlines, warning signs had been emerging across multiple elections.

Australians have increasingly abandoned the habit of voting automatically for one of the major parties.

Instead, support has gradually dispersed among independents, minor parties, and issue-focused candidates.

This trend accelerated during recent federal elections as voters expressed frustration over several interconnected issues:

• Rising household expenses.
• Housing affordability.
• Energy prices.
• Healthcare pressures.
• Immigration policy.
• Public confidence in government institutions.

While each voter prioritizes different concerns, together they have produced a broader sentiment that Australia’s political establishment is struggling to respond effectively to rapidly changing economic conditions.

One Nation has sought to position itself as the political outlet for many of those frustrations.

---

Why One Nation Is Attracting Renewed Attention

Pauline Hanson has remained one of Australia’s most recognizable—and polarizing—political figures for nearly three decades.

Unlike many protest movements that rise quickly before fading, One Nation has repeatedly returned to political relevance during periods of economic uncertainty.

Its message has remained relatively consistent:

• Stronger border controls.
• Lower immigration.
• Affordable energy.
• Greater support for regional Australia.
• Protection of Australian industries.
• Greater emphasis on national sovereignty.

Supporters argue these positions address concerns ignored by the major parties.

Critics argue many proposals oversimplify complex policy challenges or risk increasing political polarization.

Regardless of political perspective, Hanson’s longevity suggests she has maintained a durable electoral constituency.

---

Cost of Living Has Become the Defining Political Issue

Perhaps the single biggest factor reshaping Australian politics is not ideology.

It is economics.

Inflation has placed sustained pressure on household budgets.

Mortgage repayments remain elevated compared with previous years.

Rental markets remain exceptionally tight.

Electricity and gas prices continue to concern both households and businesses.

Many Australians now judge governments less by long-term visions than by one immediate question:

Are everyday living standards improving—or getting worse?

This shift favors parties capable of presenting simple explanations for complicated economic problems.

One Nation has attempted to frame itself as offering precisely that.

---

Housing Is Becoming a Political Fault Line

Housing affordability has become one of Australia’s most emotionally charged political issues.

For many younger Australians, purchasing a first home appears increasingly difficult.

At the same time, rental shortages continue affecting many communities.

Immigration has become intertwined with this debate.

One Nation argues that reducing migration would ease pressure on housing supply and infrastructure.

Labor and the Coalition generally acknowledge housing shortages while proposing different combinations of planning reform, construction incentives, and infrastructure investment.

Economists remain divided over the extent immigration alone explains Australia’s housing crisis, noting that planning restrictions, construction costs, land supply, interest rates, and population growth all play important roles.

That complexity, however, often disappears during political campaigns.

---

Energy Policy Continues to Divide Australia

Another issue strengthening political divisions is energy.

Australia possesses enormous natural resource wealth.

Yet many households continue facing high electricity prices.

One Nation argues Australia should prioritize domestic energy affordability before export interests.

Labor has defended its policies as balancing domestic supply, climate commitments, and investor confidence.

The Coalition has increasingly criticized Labor’s energy transition while proposing its own alternatives.

Energy has become one of the defining issues through which voters evaluate broader economic competence.

---

Is Australia’s Two-Party System Actually Collapsing?

The phrase “collapse of the two-party system” makes for an eye-catching headline.

Reality is more nuanced.

Australia’s preferential voting system differs substantially from many other democracies.

Minor parties can increase their primary vote significantly without replacing the major parties as governing forces.

However, something important has unquestionably changed.

Combined primary support for Labor and the Coalition has declined considerably over recent decades.

Meanwhile:

• Independents have expanded their influence.
• The Greens remain an established parliamentary force.
• Regional parties continue winning seats.
• One Nation has maintained representation in the Senate and periodically strengthened its electoral position.

Rather than collapsing overnight, Australia’s political system appears to be gradually fragmenting.

That fragmentation makes elections less predictable.

It also increases the importance of preference flows, crossbench negotiations, and coalition-building.

---

Regional Australia May Hold the Key

One Nation’s strongest opportunities continue to emerge outside Australia’s largest metropolitan centers.

Regional communities often experience political issues differently from major cities.

Economic dependence on agriculture, mining, manufacturing, and regional industries shapes voting behavior.

Many regional voters also express stronger concerns regarding:

• Infrastructure.
• Healthcare access.
• Employment opportunities.
• Fuel costs.
• Energy policy.

These communities increasingly feel overlooked by national political debates centered on metropolitan priorities.

One Nation has invested heavily in presenting itself as their political advocate.

---

The Major Parties Face Difficult Choices

The rise of smaller parties creates strategic dilemmas for both Labor and the Coalition.

Labor must balance progressive urban constituencies with traditional working-class voters concerned about living costs and immigration.

The Coalition faces pressure from conservative voters seeking stronger positions on border security, energy, and national identity.

Neither party can simply ignore growing dissatisfaction.

Whether they respond through policy adjustments or campaign messaging could influence the next federal election.

---

My Professional Perspective

After covering democratic elections across Australia, Britain, Europe, and North America for three decades, I have learned that opinion polls rarely tell the whole story.

What matters is not merely which party rises.

It is why voters are moving.

That distinction is particularly important in Australia’s current political environment.

One Nation’s resurgence should not automatically be interpreted as evidence that Australians have suddenly embraced every aspect of the party’s platform.

Instead, it may reveal something broader about declining trust in established political institutions.

History offers numerous examples.

When mainstream parties struggle to convince voters they understand everyday economic pressures, outsider parties often benefit.

Sometimes those movements permanently reshape politics.

Sometimes they simply force the major parties to adapt before fading themselves.

Australia has experienced versions of this before.

The deeper issue is that many voters increasingly believe governments—regardless of party—are becoming less capable of solving practical problems.

That perception extends beyond any single policy.

It influences attitudes toward immigration, housing, taxation, healthcare, energy, infrastructure, and public spending simultaneously.

Another important point frequently overlooked is Australia’s preferential voting system.

Unlike first-past-the-post systems, Australian elections often reward parties that can build broader preference alliances.

A higher primary vote does not automatically translate into more seats.

Conversely, a relatively modest national vote can still produce significant parliamentary influence if concentrated geographically or combined with favorable preference flows.

This means One Nation’s electoral impact cannot be measured solely by headline polling numbers.

Its influence may ultimately depend on where support is growing rather than how much support exists nationally.

There is also a broader international context.

Across many Western democracies, established political parties have faced increasing competition from movements challenging traditional policy consensus on immigration, globalization, economic management, and national identity.

Australia is not isolated from those trends.

However, every country experiences them differently because of its unique institutions, electoral system, economy, and political culture.

Perhaps the most overlooked aspect of this debate is that dissatisfaction does not necessarily equal ideological transformation.

Many Australians switching away from major parties may simply be searching for greater accountability.

Some will eventually return to Labor or the Coalition if they believe those parties have responded effectively.

Others may continue supporting independents or smaller parties.

The long-term outcome remains uncertain.

Finally, one lesson repeatedly emerges from democratic history.

Political systems rarely collapse suddenly.

Instead, they gradually evolve as voters alter their expectations.

The greatest risk for established parties is not necessarily losing one election.

It is failing to recognize that the public conversation has fundamentally changed.

If millions of voters increasingly feel disconnected from political institutions, restoring trust becomes considerably more important than winning the next news cycle.

That may ultimately be the most significant story unfolding beneath Australia’s current political turbulence.

---

Conclusion

Whether One Nation ultimately achieves a major electoral breakthrough remains to be seen.

Opinion polls offer snapshots rather than guarantees, and Australia’s preferential voting system means election outcomes often differ from early expectations.

Nevertheless, one reality is becoming increasingly difficult to dismiss.

Australian politics is more competitive, more fragmented, and more unpredictable than it was a generation ago.

Economic pressures, housing affordability, energy costs, immigration, and public trust have combined to create an environment in which traditional political loyalties are weakening.

For Labor and the Coalition, the challenge is no longer simply defeating one another.

It is convincing increasingly skeptical voters that they still understand the concerns of ordinary Australians.

For One Nation, the challenge is different.

It must demonstrate that growing public frustration can be converted into durable electoral success and practical legislative influence rather than temporary protest support.

The next federal election is therefore about much more than parliamentary arithmetic.

It will serve as a test of whether Australia’s established political order can adapt to changing public expectations—or whether a more fragmented, coalition-driven era is becoming the country’s new political reality.

The most important question is not whether Australia’s political map changes after the next election.

It is whether the growing gap between voters and political institutions can be narrowed before public frustration reshapes Australian democracy in ways few expected only a decade ago.