[Click to read the disclaimer first]
The failures of the major parties are the reason we’re having this conversation. Veterans, who risked their lives to defend the freedoms we now exercise freely are being ignored of the aid they require. The use of immigration, farming, crime and corruption as political footballs, with no intent to make change, has left the state of Australian politics and subsequently its people, in disrepair. I acknowledge this, and I’m planning to write an impartial, and in-depth write-up about these points of contention, but this article will serve solely as a tool to aid discussion on One Nation, and their legitimacy as a genuine force for change.
There is a term in our political lexicon used to describe the deterioration of a nation’s democratic principles, and its descent towards a system founded upon the antithesis of liberty.
Autocratization.
History has shown us that this process seldom reveals itself openly, rather, it is cloaked in the language of reform and justified by the promise of remedying some purported injustice. As of a few days ago, One Nation has revealed, without apology, its intent to ignite this process, in full effect.
The ability to scrutinise those in power and report freely on the affairs of the nation is a fundamental pillar of any society that claims to be a liberal democracy, yet Pauline Hanson appears to believe that Australia no longer requires such standards. By barring our independent media from the right to report and threatening to disassemble Australia’s most important mechanism of public accountability, our “world-class” nation has just played witness to a political tactic more readily associated with a dictatorship than democratic leadership.
For many, including myself, the Australian political landscape has long been a source of spectacle, frustration, and, at times, amusement. The time has come, however, to acknowledge that we can no longer afford to dismiss a movement that seeks to erode journalistic freedom and the democratic principles for which generations of Australians fought and died for.
It is indisputable, that the majority of Australian’s have been ignored by an arrogant two-party system for far too long. Seeking change is understandable, but rushing systemic transformation puts forth nothing but the uncertainty of success, and the guarantee of failure. In consequence, the question must be asked. Are Victorians now, and the rest of Australia later, willing to entrust a populist party sustained by the promises of sweeping reform, backed by little, and contradicted by lots, with the keys to the two-levelled house? Because demanding change is one thing; determining who can be trusted to deliver it, and what may be sacrificed in its pursuit, is another entirely.
History openly reveals that One Nation’s record of governing is meager, and as such its intentions cannot be presumed by pointing to past administrative achievement. We are instead left to assess the party by the standards of its conduct, consistency and integrity – for these remain the clearest measures by which the sincerity of its rhetoric, and credibility of its policy commitments, can be examined.
It is then that we see, amongst the blend of populism and legitimate public concern, that their actions in many cases falter in the wake of their hand-crafted policy, policy which they claim belongs to the working-class. I encourage all readers to take time to study the figure below, which reflects the “working-class” policy quoted or pushed by One Nation, dialogue spoken by Pauline Hanson, and evidence or actions that are contradictory to their policy.
[THE FACTS, all sources cited with hyperlinks #]
| Policy | Dialogue | Contradiction |
| In the leadup to the 2020 Queensland state election, ON heavily pushed for a public sex offender registry, as part of their policy implementation. # | Pauline Hanson on Sex Offenders – “They’re up there with murderers, and they should not be released from society” “If the do-gooders out there think that’s harsh, I don’t give a damn what you think”. # | ON hired Sean Black in 2020, a campaign manager who was convicted and jailed for rape in 2017. He was let go several months later due to internal complaints, before being rehired in 2023. He has since been removed again, as of 2026. # |
| In 2018, Pauline Hanson voted for federal legislation that prohibited political donations over $250 from anyone other than Australian citizens and locally incorporated entities. # | – | A 3-year investigation in the United States found that the One Nation Chief of Staff James Ashby, and the Queensland Leader Steve Dickinson were seeking between 10-20 million dollars in political donations from the NRA (America’s largest gun lobby) # |
| ON’s free-speech policy claims that it should be “enshrined in the Constitution to safeguard open debate, free expression, and the rights of all Australians to speak their minds without fear.” # | Hanson, at her national press club address stated, “It’s your job to scrutinise my party, it’s people, and it’s policies” “Unlike the media, I welcome it”, but “that doesn’t give the media license to delegitimise the party” # | The Guardian has been banned from all ON official party events, with ON citing journalistic mediums that make Hanson “Look bad”. The ABC, on multiple occasions has also been prevented from entering ON press events. # |
| ON policy states that “they support jobs for Australians first and foremost”, and that they aim to “stop the skilled visa rorting that allows cheap foreign labour to undercut Australian workers”. # | – | ON has, and continues to, outsource the creation and advertising of over 150 candidate pages, and the “Please Explain” video series animations, to workers in the Philippines. # |
| In 2018, Hanson became the first federal politician to introduce the IHRA definition of antisemitism into Parliament. # | – | In October 2020, Mr. Tyler Green, the 2026 ON candidate for Mawson, wrote that he had “always liked this book on the holocaust”. His post linked to an online bookstore selling copies of The Six Million: Fact or Fiction? a 2014 book that wrongly disputes the total number of Jews murdered during the Holocaust. # |
There are policies developed by One Nation that few of the major parties have been willing to champion, and where credit is due, it should be given. They have distinguished themselves through calls for the renationalisation of public infrastructure, a stronger defence of Australian farmers, the demand of royalties on extracted gas, and a significant effort to tackle migrant qualification fraud across both industry and education. Whatever you may think of the party more broadly, these are issues deserving of major political consideration, and One Nation’s willingness to place them within the national conversation is worthy of commendation.
Beneath these policy commitments, however, lies an increasingly difficult contradiction. A party that demands accountability from the political establishment, appears awfully unwilling to hold that same standard dearly, when its own conduct is placed under scrutiny. Hanson vowed never to release sex offenders from prison, yet hired one, multiple times. One Nation presents itself as an uncompromising defender of unfettered free speech, yet barred the nation’s largest independent media outlet from its press events.
Most notably, after working to preserve their image as “a party of the people, solely funded by the people” – an undercover investigation discovered that senior One Nation figures were seeking millions of dollars in funding from American gun lobbyists, whilst just months prior, Pauline Hanson pressed for legislation that would ban financial contributions from foreign corporations. Taken individually, these episodes may be dismissed as inconsistencies; taken together, they reveal something far more severe, a recurring disparity between the principles the party proclaims and the standards it appears willing to practice.
In English, there’s a saying that best embodies this philosophy, and it goes along the lines of “do as I say, not as I do.”
In politics, it’s simply called a “flip-flop.”
Although unlike the Havaianas brand, Pauline Hanson and her party are a pair of flip-flops manufactured in Australia but designed by the highest bidder. Which therefore begs the question; if a political party and its leader are willing to embrace fallacy, and abandon principle before entering the chambers of Parliament as a majority, what happens when influential patrons of the party, such as Gina Rinehart, make suggestions (demands) that oppose its policy?
Or better yet, if One Nation are willing to play heedless to their employees whose ideology differs fundamentally from that of the party, is there even the slightest reassurance, that elected members intend to fight for said policy, and is the price-tag of a divided society worth the improbable “utopia” they continue to retort?
Even more concerning than their policy riddled with enlightening contradiction, is the moral premise of their campaign.
Many people ask why I give preference (although not my vote) to the uni-party that has lied to the public and benefitted from billionaire influence, over a party that is much the same, but also claims to represent a movement for change? The reason, in my opinion, is that unlike the former, the latter is a vehicle of far-right rhetoric that, whether Hanson accepts it or not, continues to amplify the voices of extremism, most prominently in the likes of Thomas Sewell and Hugo Lennon.
One Nation can deflect criticism and pursue policy, while feigning indifference to its social consequences all it wants, but one reality remains inevitable; no society will ever function cohesively, when migrants that keep chronically understaffed industries afloat, are expected to labor in hardship towards an Australian identity that they are told repeatedly, will never be theirs to keep.
There is every reason to scrutinise the dysfunction within Australia’s immigration system, and every reason to demand meaningful reform where that system has failed. But systemic failure does not justify indiscriminate suspicion. There is no legitimate basis for reducing every immigrant to a problem simply by virtue of their arrival.
And while such hostility may not reflect One Nation’s genuine intent, the party has done astonishingly little to meaningfully repudiate the echo chamber of racialised rhetoric that surrounds the immigration debate, rhetoric that I continue to watch grow more socially permissible with each passing day (click here).
There are many One Nation voters who believe in a fruitful immigration policy, but who I believe, are unaware of the hatred that the other side of the party, has for ethnic groups, and this group that is ruminating in the depths of social media, waiting for. I’d like to remind readers that the above photos, and their associated posts, never disclose the nationality, nor any relevant information about their contributions to Australia. They could have been born in Australia, raised in Australia, and known nothing bar Australia, and yet, the consistent theme stands clear, judgement by appearance. While at this point in time, these people seem to be a minority, One Nations absence of moderation will only result in the acceleration, and justification of what was once radical ideology.
Embedded within our system of government is the Australian Values Statement, which upholds the principles of respect, freedom of religion, and equality for all, regardless of race, gender, or sex. Those seeking an Australian visa are required to affirm these values before entering the country, yet, somewhat ironically, those entrusted with shaping the nation they enter are bound by no such obligation.
It would therefore serve Hanson well to recognise that these principles are not ceremonial ideals to be invoked when politically convenient, but foundations upon which a cohesive, multi-ethnic Australia depends on. To undermine them intentionally, or unintentionally, in search of greater political gain, is to directly contribute to the erosion of a national identity that millions less fortunate could only ever dream to embrace.
Conversation remains the single greatest weapon we have in the fight against autocracy. Yet to continue pretending we live in an ideal society, free from deep structural failure, is to remain willfully ignorant of a large population that has been neglected for years. One Nation has promised these people the world, but their rage and despondence will only intensify, when they are ultimately left with far less than they were led to expect.
We must openly discuss crime, immigration, climate mitigation and other polarizing ideology with rational, level-headed conversation, admitting to their failures, and acknowledging their successes. Most importantly, we need to hold our parties accountable for their shortcomings.
To those who are fed up with the state of our country and have dwelled on the intent to vote for One Nation, I implore you to have conversations with the multiple independents that will, undoubtedly, be running in your electoral seats. The greatest politician is one who represents the voices of ordinary citizens, not those who, backed by billionaires represent a uni-party or foreign interest that has for the last few years, told the people what they need, instead of asking what they want.
When you take to the voting box, whether it be in November, or over the next two years, remember that while the box you tick is anonymous, choosing to vote for One Nation reflects more than a mere preference of policy. While you may truly believe that a vote cast in their favour, is a favour to the Australian people, their contradictions are a foreshadowing of unlikely improvement.
So, while societal and economic progress may never materialise, the erosion of belonging among immigrants, refugees and ethnic Australians certainly will, and the people who were once proud to call this country home, will be made to question whether their country is still willing to call them Australian.
There is a privilege in this world, reserved for a few, and disabled to most, that holds power far stronger than the greatest of cures.
It does not come in the form of wealth, nor health, but rather a single right. It is the right to challenge and to question without constraint, that I have come to realise, is a freedom whose benefits we have drained, but whose importance, we have failed to understand.
History has told the tale of political populism. It consists purely of war waged between an under-served working class, and an acclaimed self-serving elite. There is some truth to our population’s outrage. Veterans returned from service, to be stripped of their aid, farmers sacrificed decades of impulsive freedom, to be told they no longer matter, and nurses, teaches, and workers have all been chained to working conditions that only shine light on the government’s ingratitude towards the gears that make this country turn.
However, more pressing than the injustice faced by our working-class, is a movement that is threatening to destroy the democratic value of our land.
Amongst this freedom is a responsibility, that any man or woman calling themselves Australian must wear. It is not in its nature singularly a physical, nor verbal responsibility, but rather a collective one.
It is our duty, and responsibility as bearers of the flag, to use the Australian identity as a beacon of hope, to those who live across our shores, in places where homes built upon centuries of culture, lie tattered in rubble, whose custodians beg mercilessly, for a life, and belonging, likes ours.
Whilst we may never be able to directly shine salvation upon those across the seas, I have seen the importance of hope. There is a movement growing. It is a movement consisting of those who are.
While we may see struggle at home, there is no greater struggle in this world, than the oppression of free will.
Many question the likes of patriotism and it’s underlying cultural tone, but I for one will do nothing but embrace it. To say that I would have the ability to sit among friends, lathered in privilege, without the nurturing of a land abundant in opportunity, would be nothing short of a lie. This acclamation is also not individual, rather it is the truthful generalisation of almost every immigrant, refugee, and in actuality, every Australian who walks the land.
For that, we must be grateful, to the soldiers who serve, to the farmers who nourish, to the teachers who guide, and to every other worker who aids, for now, and for eternity.
Gratitude, however, must not be used as a bargaining chip, an application of emotional blackmail, where claims of ingratitude and cultural disfunction directed at ethnic groups should supposedly take precedent over the fundamental flaws in our society that said ethnic groups call to contention.
This is an identity, whose success was bounded by the principles of democracy, but whose demise will be funded solely by the sponsorship of autocracy.
It is hard, to commentate politically without the bias of emotion. There is a deep interpersonal conflict, one that I face as a result of the privilege of travelling, and the consequentially dark understanding of the world as a result of said travel.
My heart hurts, walking the streets of Melbourne, inadvertently accompanied by frames lying cold, comforted by the occasional donation of blankets and nourishment, but more dominantly oppressed by the wrath of governmental abandonment.
It is clear, both anecdotally and statistically, that our government has failed to put Australian’s first, but in no way, shape or form, does this mean we must put immigrants last.
