What would Australia look like under a Hanson government?
Not long ago, the question felt almost laughable – the kind of political thought experiment you raise for effect, not because it might ever happen.
But the ground is shifting. With Pauline Hanson’s One Nation riding a surge in the polls and securing a number of votes in South Australia, a certain kind of excitement has taken hold among its supporters. Talk of real influence – even kingmaker status – is no longer confined to the fringes.
Beyond that base, however, there is far less conviction. For most Australians, the idea of a Hanson government remains firmly in the realm of political fantasy – a scenario discussed more out of curiosity than expectation.
Still, it’s worth asking: what would Australia actually look like if One Nation held power?
Because the distance between protest and power is where slogans meet reality.
Governing a nation of 27 million people isn’t about grievance or rhetoric. It demands detailed, workable policy – and when you strip away the slogans, those policies reveal consequences that extend far beyond campaign soundbites.
This is what a Hanson government would really mean:
Immigration: dramatic cuts and a narrower Australia
At the core of One Nation’s platform is a sharp reduction in immigration, including calls to significantly cut intake and prioritise assimilation.
Supporters argue this would ease pressure on housing and infrastructure.
Critics point out the obvious trade-offs:
- labour shortages in key industries
- slower economic growth
- and a country less open to the world
Australia’s post-war success has been built, in part, on migration. A dramatic shift here wouldn’t just change numbers – it would change the character of the nation.
The economy: protectionism and disruption
Economically, One Nation has long advocated for:
- protection of local industries
- scepticism toward free trade agreements
- and policies aimed at economic nationalism
On paper, that sounds like standing up for Australian jobs.
In practice, it risks:
- retaliatory trade measures
- higher prices for consumers
- and reduced competitiveness in global markets
For a country as export-dependent as Australia, that’s not a small gamble.
Climate and energy: a sharp turn backwards
One Nation has consistently opposed aggressive climate action and supported fossil fuel expansion.
That would mean:
- rolling back emissions targets
- doubling down on coal and gas
- and stepping away from renewable transitions
The short-term effect might be cheaper energy in some sectors.
The long-term effect? Potential isolation as major trading partners move toward low-carbon economies – and increasing exposure to the very climate risks Australia already faces.
Media and institutions: pressure and distrust
A recurring theme in Pauline Hanson’s politics is distrust of institutions – particularly the media.
One Nation has proposed:
Supporters call it accountability.
Critics see a familiar pattern: pressure on independent institutions that are meant to hold governments to account.
Social cohesion: the biggest question
Perhaps the most significant impact wouldn’t be economic or environmental – but social.
One Nation’s rhetoric has often focused on division:
- “us” versus “them”
- suspicion of minorities
- and a narrowing definition of what it means to be Australian
Supporters argue this is about national identity.
But governing requires bringing people together, not just rallying a base.
A country run on grievance is a difficult place to hold together.
From protest to power
It’s one thing to campaign. It’s another to govern.
Campaigning rewards outrage, simplicity, and clear enemies. Governing demands compromise, detail, and responsibility.
The idea that One Nation could leap from the political fringes to forming government in a single election cycle is, at best, optimistic.
At worst, it misunderstands how complex modern government actually is.
So what would Australia look like?
Less open.
More inward-looking.
More economically uncertain.
And more divided.
That may appeal to One Nation voters, but to most of us it looks rather ugly.
It would represent a profound shift from the Australia most people recognise – a country that, for all its flaws, has generally tried to balance prosperity with openness, and identity with diversity.
There is, of course, a difference between momentum and delusion.
Polling bumps can create excitement. They can energise supporters. They can even create the illusion of inevitability.
But the idea that One Nation is on the brink of forming government belongs firmly in the realm of fantasy – not politics.
A final word
Will Pauline Hanson ever be prime minister?
One Nation voters: Yes. Absolutely. Without a doubt. The Governor General needs to step in, sack the government and give the prime ministership to Pauline Hanson (yes, I know it’s crazy but some constitution-ignorant One Nation voters are demanding it).
Me: No.
The rest of Australia: Somewhere between “you’re joking” and unlikely.
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.
Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.
Join our community of truth-seekers. Please consider donating now via:
PayPal or credit card – just click on the Donate button below
Direct bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
We’ve also set up a GoFundMe as a dedicated reserve fund to help secure the future of our site.
Your support will go directly toward covering essential costs like web hosting renewals and helping us bring new features to life. Every contribution, no matter the size, helps us keep improving and growing.
Thank you for standing with us – we truly couldn’t do this without you.
With gratitude, The AIMN Team
The frustrated unspeakably ignorant appeal and recruit, but are empty, useless. There is no intellect, policy, ability, professionalism, in such as Hanson, Ashby, Joyce. It is a disgrace and a huge lowering of political outlook. Maggot away in the One Nation muck, hoping for “vision.”
Can we just pause for a moment and try to imagine what a Hanson government would look like?
The red-headed harpy answering every journalist’s question with her plaintive ‘Please explain?’
The likes of Barnyard Joyce, Malcolm Roberts, Tyron Whitten, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell at the helm of decision-making that would affect entire populations?
A void in important areas including engagement with foreign governments, environmental sustainability, energy policies, future-proofing, health & education & housing… it wouldn’t take much for the people to wake up to our local version of a Trump disaster, an ‘oh shit, what have we done?’ moment.
And as for the many millions of first or second generation migrants from Asia, India, the Middle East, (and any other country where the skin colour is not bleached white), God help them under a Hanson regime.
@ Canguro – my thoughts exactly!
It’s long overdue time that political communications ask what will your party do?
Instead of what won’t it do.
It has been quite revealing and somewhat alarming that in the build-up to the SA election there was no media scrutiny of Hanson or her policies.
There were the regular SKY after Dark love-ins with Paul Murray but never an incisive interview on the ABC. Never a questioning of her economic policies or any other policies.
What was she doing on Gina Rinehart’s executive jet flying to CPAC meetings at Mar-a-Lago when the Australian senate was in session?
It’s as if the serious media realised that she was all smoke and mirrors and let her off lightly: they will come to regret this lack of enquiry.
The woman is a nightmare who sees Trump as a Messiah. Will somebody at the ABC please grow a pair and sit this charlatan down and give her a good grilling!
The weird thing is that occasionally right-wing clowns are correct.
Their economics policy as given here, if accurate, is OK by me — protection of local industries, scepticism toward free trade agreements, and policies aimed at economic nationalism.
We have the resources, the space, and the educated workforce to work towards autarky status.
Such a move might have some disadvantages, but it would protect us from global insecurity such as we see now.
If we invested in infrastructure and an expanded industrial base we could make ourselves recession-proof.
Let’s face reality.
The US for selfish reasons, has destroyed the World Trade Organisation, and that was a positive. Global trade agreements were a confidence trick from the beginning.
One-on-one trade agreements however, are manageable.
As things stand, the rules of the game now are, that there is no rules.
From here on in, it’s survival of the fittest.
We can be the fittest without being the meanest.
Striving for independence can only be a good thing.
I doubt that Porelean will ever be Prim Monster because the real battle for leadership is between Beetrooter, who is already accurately describing her many ”wonderful talents” and James ”Remember Peter slipper” Ashby, the former leader-elect until a more notorious candidate presented.
In any ON government Malcolm Roberts likely would be Minister for Science, able to do for Australia what RFK Jr has done for medical services in America. With an ageing population those policies would be an anathema. The other two persons are unknowns.
The SA election is still being counted, with the SA LABOR government returned with an increased majority, possibly as many as 36/47 seats while the LIARBRAL$ are reduced to one (1) Adelaide seat, plus likely a few regional electorates.
ON vote has increased but reported as mainly in regional electorates where government infrastructure spending is minimal. There is a message here for other state governments.
Perhaps the TACO Trumpery fossil fuel supply crisis will ”encourage” the Minus NSW LABOR government to renovate and reopen the Main North Line between Armidale & Jennings Wallangarra, reducing the demand for heavy road transport. Rail provides passenger services and alternatives to road freight in regional areas where economic & social development is stagnating for lack of job opportunities for our kids.
Oops!! Silly me!! Beetrooter promised Tenterfield voters that his election in 2013 would yield the return of passenger train services, and the Tenterfield CBD Highway By-Pass, but it is now 13 years since those political promises were made and maybe the impact of too much alcohol & sleeping planter boxes has meant those promises have ”slipped his mind”.
What horrifies and disgusts me, is that people who are unhappy with the LNP and Labor (who isn’t?) are voting to jump from the frying pan straight into the fire, when there’s an eminently better party that genuinely has Australia’s best interests (not corporate, fossil fuel or Zionist) at heart? Greens. Living in this country is like getting a slap to the face every single day.
See the UK too with same platforming of Farage and same talking points from US fossil fuel Koch and anti-immigrant Tanton Networks* (equals Project 2025); then Murdoch led RW MSM and ecosystem does the PR & comms to their audiences.
*Includes late white nationalist John ‘passive eugenics’ Tanton, peer and colleague at fossil fuel ZPG Zero Popukation Growth with the now also late Paul ‘Population Bomb’ Ehrlich.
It’s not an organic dynamic, but simply represents power and influence of oligarchs and ageing voters, till ‘the great replacement’ does its work..
And just what is Hanson’s policy on foreign relations and defence (NOT war!). Is she for AUKUS? Will she re-negotiate the ANZUS Treaty and US military leases on Pine Gap, North West Cape etc as a notion of national sovereignty.? What about our relationship with UK and the Monarchy? Is she for or against an Australian Republic? Will she review and limit (by redefinition) the access of industry and religious/cultural lobbyists to our governance processes? What about clarity and accountability for donations to political parties? I guess these questions are beyond the analytical prowess of commentators such as Sky After Dark and Andrew Bolt. Never-the-less I want answers!!
It amazes me that anyone thinks she is on the brink of power – 30 years she has been bleating her racist, ignorant theories, and not ONCE has she put up a motion in the Senate or a private members’ bill for anything concrete. She is a noise, appealing to the base ignorance and bigotry that exists in every country. The way to counter PHON is to keep asking questions, concrete ideas, not just vague theories and airy fairy notions. We only need to look at the basket case of Trump’s USA to see what Australia would be like under Pauline’s moronic notion of “Australia for Australians”.
Further to my post above; this morning 230326 the SA election results (47 seats) has LABOR = 32; LIARBRAL$ = 5, (1 in metro Adelaide) ON = 2, INDEPENDENT =2; UNDECIDED = about 6.
The LABOR vote COULD reach 37 seats, the LIARBRAL$ appear done & dusted, did the NOtional$ run any candidates??
I don’t know what our country would be like under a One Nation government, but I do know that under decades of Labor or coalition rule, we have gone backwards.
It really is time for change.
Hanson congratulated Peter Malinauskas on his victory, but warned she’s leaving “some landmines” behind in South Australia as she heads back to Canberra. “I’m leaving you some landmines; they’re called One Nation members of parliament,” Hanson said.
Clearly Hanson and her backers have no interest in the welfare and wellbeing of the people of South Australia. They are there to disrupt and blow-up the Malinauskas government. This reflects the pattern of behaviour exhibited by Mrs Hanson and her followers on the federal scene: never contribute anything positive, never consider the wellbeing of the Australian economy, just blow it up! They take their lead from Donald Trump.
A less obvious advantage to be gained from economic nationalism, or protection and enhancement of local industry, is that it would help us out of the mire of the national inferiority complex that has us locked into security alliances that are not in our interests.
We stupidly believe that we need protection by the US, when in reality we need protection from the US.
The US does not enter agreements that involve the slightest sacrifice by the US.
Every US agreement is to its advantage, which means that other partners to the agreement are disadvantaged.
Pursuing a program of economic nationalism would show us that we can act alone, we can be independent.
A great way to start would be the establishment of missile and drone production industries, for defence only.
This would kill three birds with one stone — provide employment, grow our hi-tech industries from flow-on effects, and give us the capability for self-sufficiency in defence.
And the One Nation Trump-lovers would hate it.
jonangel:
If you don’t know what Australia would be like with ON in power federally, why would you want them there? Also, can you name any thing you can guarantee they would do better than the incumbents?
Steve, I’d ask, are “One Nation Trump-lovers” any more deeply in love with Trump than our own Liberals?
jonangel, I worked for hours to construct that comment, (not really 🙂 ) and that’s your only take-away?
Hanson lost her Lower House seat at the general elections 1998. She was elected to the Senate for Queensland 2016 and re-elected 2022.
Her record of achievement for the people of Queensland [who she nominally represents] has been zero!
Her voting record follows very much the coalition:
PAULINE VOTED YES FOR:
– Banning mobiles and other devices in immigration detention
– Decreasing ABC and SBS funding
– Drug testing welfare recipients
– Decreasing availability of welfare payments
– Live animal export
– Political intervention in research funding grants
– Reducing taxes for high-income earners
– Putting welfare payments onto cashless debit cards
– Unconventional gas mining
PAULINE VOTED NO FOR:
– A Roval Commission into Violence and Abuse against People with a Disability
– Increasing access to the Jobkeeper Payment
– Increasing funding for university education
– Increasing marine conservation
– Increasing political transparency
– Increasing protection of Australia’s fresh water
– Increasing the Newstart Allowance rate
– Increasing the Youth Allowance rate
– Increasing workplace protections
Protecting threatened forest and bushland habitats
– Increasing housing affordability
– Increasing investment in renewable energy
– Increasing legal protections for LGBTI people
– Increasing restrictions on gambling
– Making TAFE education fee-free
– The federal government calling for a ceasefire in Gaza
– Increasing the diversity of media ownership
– Increasing protection of Aboriginal heritage sites
– Increasing access to subsidised childcare
– Decreasing the gender pay gap
– A Royal Commission into Robodebt
– Labors hate speech laws
– Labors gun reforms
Hansonite horrors surge as the hennahaired broom jockey wins support in S.A. elections, mostly from irritable boofheads who have been betrayed by conservative clods, clowns, clapped out country bumpkins and boneskulls. Hanson has said she will leave land mines behind, but, they are actually cowpats. Under-educated, unaware, unpleasant, unprofessional, untouchable, she grins on.
Leefe, as One Nation has never been in power, it is impossible to know what the outcome would be? Unlike you, most of us don’t have the power to see the future, but based on your posts, yours is not to bright, is it?
Just answer the question Steve, I’m sure you can, if you try.
jonangel, my question to you has already been answered, so there’s nothing more to discuss.
Good try, but your out for a duck.
One Nation is a product of the deep voter disaffection with the major political parties.
ON have no solutions and only threadbare policies. Their major capabilities are plugging into an emotional reaction, and laying blame.
Like it or not, our problems are multi facetted. There are no easy solutions
Trump is clear proof of this.
Given the disastrous experience of the US, it is breathtaking that ON has any appeal.
The current political landscape is unappealing , but One Nation should never be an option
Am I the only one here who has the sense that jonangel’s contributions to the discussions on this website have the character of that kid in the classroom whose sole role is to be a disturbing influence, asking asinine questions that add nothing to the general drift except the injection of irritation, frustration, the role of fool poorly played, slightly dumb and wanting desperately to play with the big kids, to be accepted, to contribute but being out of his depth and making a hash of it? It seems that way, all things considered, when the overall tenor of his offerings are assessed.
A suitable candidate for offering his loyalties to One Nation, perhaps?
Canguro:
He’s JAQing off. That’s been obvious for some time. Occasionally, it’s fun to play with him.
Steve’s observations are shrewd and like it not, AC’s comment is not humbug.
Consider history and the fall of the Weimar republic to the Nazis. When the brown shirt element outlived its usefulness it was crushed by Hitler and hi s pals. With Hansonism I see a form of asphalting that could represent a threat to parties who remain complacent…there will be a blue print at the Heritage Foundation.
I am sorry Canguro, I did not realise how sensitive you were, Trumpism is it?
Symptoms: it’s you way or you sulk, try holding hands with Leefe, that might, just might toughen you both up.
Oops!! I have skipped over some fabulous comments in error.
@ Canguro: Must add, ”imagining a Handjob government would look like”:
Beetrooter the expert in adultery, alcoholism, bigotry, corruption, fornication, sexual harassment, philandering, misogyny and promoting his own personal pecuniary interests in planter box accommodation options. A fitting recruit for Only Nutters.
@ Terry Mills: There is nothing to see so the MSM was unable to scribble anything that was NOT a fabrication.
@ Steve: Agree with your national self-sufficiency. It was the LIARBRAL$ supporting bosses who sold out Australian manufacturing capacity, except for Toxic RAbbott and the death of automobile assembly at a cost of an estimated 30,000 jobs creating 30,000 more dole recipients.
@ Mediocrates: Keep asking!1 I want the same answers also!
@ keitha granville: As a local Aboriginal person commented, ”Does that mean all the Anglo-Celtic-European invaders and their off-spring will be sent back to their own country after her election”??
@ Terry Mills; I would not be too worried just yet because the LIARBRASL$ appear to have five (5) seats to Only Nutters two (2) seats, so the LIARBRAL$ likely would be His Majesties Opposition with the accompanying perks of office.
@ Steve: Drones policy: Great idea. Much more effective than the Scummo USUKA sub debacle. Drag the Australian military straight into 21st century warfare.
@ Terry Mills: Pawlean voting record; underwhelming and usually against the best interests of Australian voters.
@ AC: The appeal for Pourlene is the smell of all that lovely money and affluence of riding in executive jets fantasising about being ”really important” by being around with Auntie Gina.
@ paul walter: Another student of Weimar Germany and the unfortunate demise of German democracy at the hands of the German heavy industrialists scared of the Communist Russia menace.
Media coverage of ON, in a nation bewitched by adverts and slogans, overcomes common sense, without which, a vote for ON or Trump becomes acceptable.
Terry, a great list but Pauline needs the voting trilogy,
For
Against
Missing https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/pauline_hanson/divisions
The ABC reported on the candidate for the seat of Adeliade, Aoi Baxter, revealing something that One Nation’s candidate vetting process had overlooked. Baxter was revealed to be the subject of a UK arrest warrant for failing to appear in court over an alleged sexual offence. He was swiftly dumped by One Nation but more to the point the ABC were therafter excluded from One Nation media briefings and the party’s post election celebrations.
It seems that One Nation would have preferred that the ABC had not reported on this issue as their good friends at SKY appeared to have done