Why is One Nation rising, and will it last?

Despite being considered one of the most functional democracies in the world, not even Australia has been spared from the rise of right-wing populism. Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (PHON) has had a surge in the polls since late 2025 and now looks set to topple the two major parties’ longstanding hold on Australian politics. While this is yet to ripple into a federal election, PHON’s recent by-election win in Secret Harbour suggests that its emergence is not a fluke. But what all the hype doesn’t tell us is this: what are the exact reasons for its rise, and can Hanson actually steer the ship to shore?

Hanson is a bit of an anomaly (save perhaps Farage) in playing the game for so long. PHON was originally founded in 1996, after Hanson was expelled from the Liberal Party. Her calls to greatly stem multiculturalism and immigration to, in her eyes, protect the livelihoods of ‘ordinary Australians ’ were considered too extreme. It’s been far from a smooth ride since. PHON’s first electoral wave in the late 90s was quickly reduced to rubble by internal infighting and the electoral strength of the Coalition. 

After a long period of non-relevance, Hanson returned to the party in 2016, and while it’s been steadily rising since, its latest surge is shockingly recent. On the surface level, PHON’s recent surge suggests a postmaterialist shift in Australian attitudes, due to the prominence of social conservatism in its rhetoric. What such an analysis misses, however, is that when PHON originally emerged, the Coalition and later Labor were willing to adopt elements of this social conservatism, especially on immigration. This, in theory, should have satisfied potential defectors already by addressing their primary concerns, namely immigration.

Instead, PHON’s rise must be understood through an unobvious, but nevertheless sensible, materialist perspective. Both the Coalition and Labor have coalesced around a ‘neoliberal consensus’ in policy. They have presided over an economy that is increasingly bound to global financial markets, prioritising the generation of profit nationally over the protection of workers and their industries. This is particularly glaring for Labor. The party has shifted from being the bulwark of unions and the welfare state, protecting all Australians regardless of their financial status, to a joint facilitator in the transformation of the economy towards this new consensus.

Such a consensus has come at a cost. Wages have fallen behind inflation due to the loss of collective bargaining under unions. Housing is in short supply due to decreasing government investment, especially in social housing. All these changes compound the Australian interior particularly, as neoliberalism’s global focus has also encouraged the decline of traditional industries, which can be offshored elsewhere. This explains why PHON persists in these areas more than in suburban and urban areas, where the rise of the services industry has cushioned the worst effects of economic deprivation. 

At the same time, PHON utilises this by turning post-materialism on its head: its emphasis on social conservatism is propelled precisely by the neoliberal consensus. The party has galvanised voters by framing social issues as economic solutions, in the absence of any other material alternative. This is demonstrated clearly by the party’s linkage of housing and immigration, pledging that reducing immigration will free up the remaining housing stock for current Australian citizens. It is true that not all PHON’s policies are exclusively social. Taxing gas exports, for instance, is a material-based policy that also slightly deviates from neoliberal norms. Nevertheless, all these policies rely on a similar anti-globalist footing. 

That might seem contradictory, but it adds up when taking into account that PHON openly embraces one of neoliberalism’s primary elements: scarcity within the economy, fiscally limiting investment and government intervention. Working within the consensus is why PHON’s message gets across so well. In the current paradigm of political ideology, it makes sense to invest in Australia, and Australia alone. Increasing support from Australia’s wealthiest, like Gina Rinehart, indicates that PHON is not inherently threatening to their position, and is therefore aligned with the neoliberal consensus. PHON returns the favour by avoiding critiques of excessive wealth accumulated within Australia. This additionally explains why Australia’s billionaire-backed right-wing media establishment has been willing to switch so fluidly from backing the Coalition to parroting Hanson. 

Does this mean PHON is set for government? Not necessarily. PHON would first need to displace one of the two major parties in Australia. PHON are making the Coalition bleed, but only to an extent. The party’s messaging resonates particularly well in the traditional base of the National Party, due to its focus on reviving traditional industries and emphasis on cultural homogeneity. The Nationals’ brand as the party of ‘regional Australia’ has waned with the decline of the Coalition, marred by internal infighting and consistent electoral defeats. Such decline is unlikely to reverse in the immediate future, especially when up against Hanson’s booming presence online and in other forms of media.

PHON will struggle elsewhere. In the recent South Australian state election, PHON managed to gain a sizeable chunk of rural seats from the Liberals, but failed to gain ground in suburban areas. Here, PHON’s emphasis on social conservatism does have its limits. One can see why through Hanson’s ongoing dispute with one of the party’s MPs, David Farley.

Farley’s insistence on maintaining economically necessary immigration, even if this puts it at similar numbers to the ruling Labor government, has been repeatedly denied by Hanson, who insists on reducing immigration as much as possible. What this suggests is that PHON will be unable to compromise in areas where more pragmatic variations of policy might be favoured, making them unlikely to wholly displace the Coalition. Farley himself was selected to be a candidate by members of the local party, suggesting his views are not merely personal, but also reflective of his electorate being more pragmatic. If Farley does depart PHON, which remains a serious possibility, it will definitively hamper the party’s prospects of courting moderate voters in the future. 

Even so, PHON has capitalised on its recent success off long-standing economic deprivation, and such trends can only be reversed through serious re-evaluations in how the major parties approach the economy. Regardless, with the limitations of PHON’s approach becoming increasingly prevalent, it remains highly doubtful as to whether Hanson will garner enough support to rule the roost in Canberra. The upcoming state elections in Victoria and NSW are major tests for PHON. Is the party’s prevalence here to stay, or will it fragment again as it did in the 90s? That is ultimately a choice (whether they want to or not) for Australians to make at the ballot box. 

Illustration: Will Allen/Europinion