By Helen Reynolds
For a few months it has appeared that Pauline Hanson could not put a foot wrong.
Opinion polls showed One Nation climbing, while the Coalition struggled to define itself after its election defeat. Hanson was no longer being treated as a fringe political figure. Instead, commentators were discussing whether she had become Australia’s principal opposition voice. At one point, some polling even placed her ahead of the Prime Minister as the country’s preferred leader.
Her message seemed perfectly tuned to the mood of the Conservative voter.
Australians were frustrated by rising living costs, a worsening housing crisis, pressure on infrastructure, and migration levels that many – mainly conservatives – believed had outpaced Australia’s capacity to absorb new arrivals. (Or rather, certain arrivals – wrong skin colour, wrong religion, and non-English speaking.) Hanson positioned herself as the politician willing to say what others would not.
For a time, it worked.
Then came the National Press Club.
Rather than concentrating on housing affordability, immigration levels or economic management, Hanson broadened her argument into something far more fundamental. She declared that Australia should abandon multiculturalism in favour of becoming a “monocultural” nation, arguing that multiculturalism had failed us.
It proved to be a significant political turning point.
Australians have repeatedly shown that they are prepared to have robust debates about immigration numbers. They are also willing to question whether migration should be reduced to relieve pressure on housing and public services.
Those are policy debates, but questioning multiculturalism itself is something quite different.
Modern Australia is one of the world’s most culturally diverse democracies. Millions of Australians either migrated here themselves or are the children and grandchildren of migrants. For many voters, multiculturalism is not viewed as a political experiment but simply as a description of modern Australian society.
The polling suggests that Hanson may have discovered where public concern about immigration ends and public acceptance of multicultural Australia begins.
Her popularity fell noticeably in the days following the speech, reversing much of the momentum that had made One Nation appear politically unstoppable only weeks earlier. Analysts have pointed to the monocultural message as one of the principal reasons for that decline.
This does not mean Hanson has lost her political relevance. Far from it, in my reckoning.
She remains one of our country’s most recognisable political figures, and One Nation continues to attract voters who feel ignored by both Labor and the Coalition. Immigration, government spending, energy policy and cost-of-living pressures remain fertile political ground.
But there is an important lesson in recent events.
Australians may be willing to vote for politicians who promise to slow migration. They are far less willing to embrace politicians who appear to reject the multicultural character of Australia itself.
That distinction matters. It suggests that concerns about immigration are often practical rather than ideological. Voters may worry about housing supply, congested infrastructure or wage growth without believing that cultural diversity is itself the problem.
Successful political movements recognise where public sentiment lies, and sometimes they mistake temporary momentum for a mandate to push much further.
Pauline Hanson’s National Press Club address may ultimately be remembered as one of those moments.
Not because it changed Australia. But because it reminded Australian politicians that there is still a significant difference between debating immigration policy and asking Australians to abandon the multicultural society that most now regard as simply part of who they are.
Also by Helen
Pauline Hanson and the Polarisation of Australian Politics
The Longest Night: Trump’s State of the Union Sets Record for Boasts, Beefs, and Bull
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
It appears that the PHONeys are very much for a ”monocultural Australia” but the SMH 020726 reports that foreign click merchants have been employed to flood the Internet with pro-PHONey propaganda.
“One Nation has admitted to outsourcing virtual assistants for its candidates to the Philippines”
“The pro-One Nation content from Indonesia flooding Australian feeds appears to be highly co-ordinated, with identical images repeated across multiple accounts.”
“A Current Affair messaged about 25 Indonesian Facebook accounts supporting One Nation and failed to receive a single reply.”
“Sometimes one person might be managing 15 different Facebook pages, and they would be putting out the same content on [each of them],” said Ross Tapsell, ANU researcher.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/foreign-digital-army-behind-pro-one-nation-posts-flooding-social-media-20260630-p60bfu.html (paywall)
A political monoculture?? Try North Korea, the religious FRWNJ nutters of the USA Bible Belt, or the past East Germany.
“A monoculture is one in which a conformist collective consciousness dominates. It is repressive not liberative, authoritarian not democratic, collectivist not individualist, closed not open. Non-conformity with the collective consciousness leads to sanctions, including racial or gender stereotyping, verbal or physical abuse, bullying, marginalisation, ostracism, torture, even death. It is a jingoistic, mean-spirited, selfish and backward-looking idea whose time passed decades ago, especially as far as contemporary Australia is concerned.
In fact, ‘monoculture’ is a malevolent political metaphor designed to shore up the survival of the leaders of the state, giving them precedence over the rights and freedoms of their subjects. If outsiders are admitted into the monoculture they must conspicuously assimilate to its prevailing habits and values. Newcomers who speak different languages, who dress differently, who worship differently or who eat different foods, are often accused by the monoculture’s cheerleaders of taking advantage of the benefits of their new society without shouldering its obligations or respecting its values.”
Reference: What is a monoculture? Pearls & Irritations, 020726
I guess that now Pawlean, Beetrooter & the PHONeys have joined the billionaire’s club as a supplicant members and “useful idiots” they would class themselves as “leaders of the state, giving them precedence over the rights and freedoms of their subjects”, rights & freedoms that the PHONeys require to ”do a Trump” on the Australian population.
Telling women they shouldn’t be paid while they’re not “at work” but raising children was a fundamental issue as well, questioning business rights to just sack people if they felt like it – she stepped on a mine there, and I reckon many are just sick of her NO NO NO stuff, total lack of ACTUAL policies that might help and her cos relationship with the wealthiest person in the country Whatever happens to AUstralia she’s all right Jack !!
We all know what a bigoted, mean, dimwit Hanson is, what I can’t understand is why the National Press Club, (are they fools as well?)didn’t blow her out of the water on the day.Were they under instructions not to ask difficult questions, perhaps apart from Sarah Martin?
The NPC, in my opinion , are not worth two knobs of goat shit, and that goes for almost all of the mainstream media…they are a large part of the problem,especially Murdoch’s trash.They all think they are part of the political establishment..mediaeval courtiers of the 21st century, scuttling about the corridors like sewer rats, spreading rumours like the plague.
Cocky quotes Pearls & Irritations on the definition of a monoculture. To be fair, there are other interpretations. Approximately 95-96% of residents in South Korea are ethnically Korean, the balance primarily foreign nationals – temporary workers and international students. Genetically, the population is highly homogeneous, the very definition of a monoculture – think of a field of wheat, or an apple orchard comprised of one variety.
The pejorative description of ‘monoculture’ supplied by Pearls & Irritation does not in any way apply to that country, given that it is a modern, open, democratic, liberal, forward-thinking community of, in the main, highly educated people. Ancient and modern religions sit side by side, agrarian and modern technological practices also, foreigners are welcomed (unless they’re North Korean), and by and large the society sits comfortably within the northern Asian communities. Similar comments could also be made about Japan, Mongolia, and to the south, the Philippines, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, and Indonesia.
As always, when describing, it’s useful to apply caution when using broad brush strokes.
Ms Hanson is a career politician of thirty years. Bigotry and racism have made her a multimillionaire. Her “party” – such as it is – recently won its first House of Reps seat but already the bloke seems at odds with Ms Hanson. As for her first ever appearance at the Old Boys… er sorry… National Press Club, she struggled to read her own prepared speech. Was it the first time she had actually read it? She obviously didn’t write it herself. Or did she??? Either way, she was like a roo in the headlights. I almost felt sorry for her. ALMOST. With two years until the next election pantomime, I doubt she’ll get any further that the current wet fart that Gina the Hutt has invested in.
Addendum. What is a “monoculture”? Try Israel.
@ Max Gross: Agreed. Any persons known to ask ”difficult” questions were either dis-invited or kept a long way from the microphone, by order of the NPC executive, who are usually Murdochcracy employees.
Israel a ”monoculture”?? Surely not ….. Israel is a monotheistic collection of FRWNJs seeking a land area to enslave Indigenous Palestinians and steal the land, often at gun point or assassination with impunity, and whinge about how they are the victims of everything including their own political preferences.
Our media outlets seem to be obsessed with the apparent popularity of Pauline Hanson and her One Nation money machine.
Nobody seems to be looking at the Poll samplers who appear to be telling us that Australians are seeing Pauline Hanson and Barnaby Joyce as our next prime minister and Treasurer in waiting.
I find after much online searching that the poll samples were around one thousand people; we are not told what questions were put. We are not told if these samples were taken randomly face to face on the street: we are not told if the samples were by phone and if so whether by Mobile connection or landline. So much that we don’t know yet we are told that it is factual.
Personally I cannot believe that my fellow Australians see this woman as our future leader and her offsider as our next treasurer: didn’t we go down this road once before with Barney and then he got pissed and fell over a concrete planter box?
Let’s focus on the real story here and that is how and where the poll samples were taken: nobody asked me! Hands up if you were asked.
One Nation believes that climate change is a “hoax”; clearly, One Nation is not keeping abreast with what is happening around the Planet.
We have highly credentialed climate scientists continuously working to understand what is happening around Earth. Sophisticated equipment is used to develop data that One Nation ignores. It is very thin opinion that One Nation uses to try to debunk the work being done by experienced climate scientists.
Ideology does not provide an argument against science. Climate science grew from the late 1820s through Fourier; experimentation by Foote and Tyndall consolidated climate science further in the 1850s. Many books and research papers have been published in the twentieth century. The few scientists debunking climate science have well and truly been shown to be wrong.
Answer from Google question: how accurate is One Nation’s opinion that climate change is a hoax?
“AI Overview One Nation’s claim that climate change is a “hoax” contradicts the overwhelming global scientific consensus. More than 99% of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies agree that global warming is real and primarily driven by human activities.Major scientific institutions rely on multiple, independent lines of evidence to confirm these changes:Temperature Records: Direct instrument measurements show an unprecedented rise in global average surface temperatures since the late 19th century.Ice Melts & Sea Levels: Polar ice sheets are shrinking, contributing to significant global sea-level rise.Greenhouse Gases: Greenhouse gas levels, particularly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, are at their highest levels in millions of years and trap heat within the atmosphere.One Nation’s arguments often conflict with verifiable data and reports, pointing to bodies like the NASA Science Evidence of Climate Change and the Australian Academy of Science for comprehensive, peer-reviewed physical evidence ….”
Just how bad does a group have to be if Pauline Hanson makes them look like a bunch of wannabe criminals hiding the truth, a bunch of sly, sneaky sods trying to get what it couldn’t upfront by going through the backdoor, a bunch of democracy destroying creeps trying to hang on to power whatever it takes.
Labor are at it again, not satisfied throwing millions away trying to hide what it does in government from the people, are now using the unlimited resources of government to keep people from asking about what is going on.
Having failed to corrupt Australian democracy further by altering Freedom of Information laws to hide government activity, in a way even the Coalition found too much to come at, Labor is now surruptiously achieving this end on the sly, by going around to and through the backdoor.
The party that claimed it was going to clean up government integrity and be more transparent, Labor, is now opening up Australian government to even more corruption and incompetence.
After losing an FOI case to a private citizen, Labor has appealed to the Federal court seeking costs for its appeal from the citizen.
So, an Australian citizen could win an FoI case and the government could then make that citizen pay in the order of $150 000. Is there no length of scumbaggery that Labor wouldn’t go to in order to hide its activity?
‘The Secretary of the Department of Industry has now decided to appeal the decision to the Federal Court, also asking Rex to pay their legal fees, which can be up to $150,000.
In effect, such a move would cause citizens to stop at an FOI loss and
make it unfeasible to challenge dodgy decisions.
Which is why Shoebridge, Hanson, Babet, Thorpe et al has written to the Attorney-General, asking her to intervene:
“It has long been accepted that the Government, with its considerable resources, must be fair to its citizens. Dragging an ordinary citizen, self-represented and under threat of costs, to argue questions of law raised by the Government is most unfair.
“It also places the Court in the position of having to determine matters of law where the only legal professionals involved are those arguing the Government’s position. Indeed, it is highly foreseeable that Mr Patrick would only make a submitting appearance and leave the Court with no contradictor, which does not automatically remove his liability for costs.
“The ‘scales of justice’ would clearly be weighed down in favour of the Government and we believe that is not a recipe for good development of public law”
They also reminded the Attorney-General of the Prime Minister’s 2019 commitment to Government Transparency:
“In 2019 Anthony Albanese, then the opposition leader, delivered a landmark ‘Labor and Democracy’ speech in which he strongly advocated for Freedom of information and government integrity. He criticised existing laws at the time, arguing that ‘The current delays, obstacles, costs and exemptions make it easier for the government to hide information from the public. That is just not right’”.
“The Secretary’s attempt to impose costs in Mr Patrick’s matter seems entirely at odds with the Prime Minister’s stated values, particularly noting it is legal action launched by the Commonwealth.”’
https://michaelwest.com.au/odd-bedfellows-pollies-weigh-in-on-unfair-transparency-fight/
If you voted Labor ahead of alternative progressives in ’25, do you look at your grandchildren and think, ‘Hah, I’d rather see Labor in power, than you have even the slightest inkling of what they’re up to behind your back’?
Albo, now certainly has a problem re his 2019 Labor and Democracy speech. Albeit, since that time the incidence of geostrategic competition and insecurity along with cyberscaming & hacking and concomitant threats has ballooned – a significance of it state sponsored.
Accordingly, the FOI landscape has changed enormously.
Typically it was the cognoscenti that made use of FOI; journalists and political opponents. However, increasingly of late (at huge cost to the taxpayer for scrutiny/detection) it has become a domain infested by (often vexatious) cyberactors of all types, many only interested in onselling information to outsiders seeking to undermine/destabilize govt(s). It would seem PHON may have ventured into this arena.
Parliaments are surely the place where our elected representatives are charged with keeping one another to account by probing and asking the right questions (not only within ‘question time’) on all matters, including in the scrutiny and passing of legislation, both in the House of Reps and Senate. And via the Senate with its powers of ‘Public Inquiry’ and ‘Senate Estimates Hearings’.
Whilst MPs retain certain ‘Parliamentary Privileges’, it remains an offense to mislead or obstruct or hinder the proceedings of Parliament. And the Speaker retains the (discretionary) power (incl by reference to the House and Privileges Committee) to assign a penalty for such ‘contempts’. And those penalties can go to:
commitment to prison;
imposition of a fine;
(public) reprimand or admonishment;
exclusion from the precincts; or
requirement for an apology—publicly.
And the House retains the right to have government law officers prosecute an offender, and to involve the DPP. And it is possible to initiate private prosecution.
All MPs, political parties and those within the sphere of politics are aware of these situations, and in these days of political hardball, it does not preclude any of them from playing their political performances to the hilt, particularly in the public domain (whilst keeping one eye on the polls).
A strategy to defeat the PHONeys cult from a credible pollster source. A ”difficult” read, but worth the effort.
https://johnmenadue.com/post/2026/06/why-pauline-hansons-biggest-weakness-is-her-newest-voters/
Oh, the mixed messages of P Hanson, that badly assembled whineration. P Hanson’s spurt at the press club says much, and K Samaris writes well. Igginess, underpopulated areas, gaps and shortages, this is clear and accurate. Hansonism is actually against prosperity, progress, rural redress and education, but is for dumbery, whining, nothing positive or constructive, emptiness, childish chronic complaining. Incapable.
Clakka,
that’s all very interesting.
What evidence can you point to in support for asserting that the FOI landscape has become infested with cyberactors, often making vexatious claims.
I’d be interested, as all my reading suggests the problem with the FOI system, including costs, lies with the government and its agencies being secretive.
Also, were you seriously suggesting that question time has been effective in holding the government to account, or was that facetious commentary?
Can you tell me of any Federal parliamentarian sent to prison or fined for misleading parliament? they must have slipped my mind.
Another perspective on that PHoney….
https://theshot.net.au/uncategorized/hanson-is-just-the-tip-of-the-oligarchs-far-right-iceberg/
@ Terry Mills: Kos Samaras (Red Bridge) has some interesting observations about the Grievance Strategy of the PHONeys cult and that immigrant Channel 9 ”breakfast presenter” what’s his name.
“Grievance media skews young and male, the very cohort now driving podcast growth here, with more than 40 per cent of men aged 15 to 34 listening daily. But young Australians are the least receptive audience in the country for right-wing politics. One Nation’s primary vote among Gen Z sits at around 10 per cent. Even among Gen Z men, the core demographic for this kind of content, the bit that theoretically should convert, it tops out near 15 per cent. So you are building a product for an audience least inclined to buy it. It’s akin to leaving a well paying job to to make craft beer. Yes, there is a market, but the scale is small. Yes, you can make money, but not in the millions.”
https://johnmenadue.com/post/2026/07/monetising-grievance-in-australia-its-harder-than-you-think/
Does Pawlean & the PHONeys cult represent you?? Consider all the people & things that are rejected, and determine your position in the welcome stakes.
https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-a-to-z-of-who-pauline-hanson-does-and-does-not-represent,21228