Former deputy prime minister Kim Beazley has issued a warning that is difficult to ignore.
Australia, he says, risks becoming an “outsider” if One Nation enters government.
Beazley is hardly an unfamiliar figure when it comes to Australia’s place in the world. A former defence minister, deputy prime minister and Australian ambassador to the United States, he has spent much of his career dealing with the rather complicated business of keeping Australia secure and connected to the rest of the world.
So what exactly does he mean? Would electing Pauline Hanson really leave Australia standing outside the international tent? Or is this simply another example of political hyperbole accompanying the rise of One Nation?
The answer probably depends less on Pauline Hanson herself than on what a Hanson-led government would actually do.
And that is where things become interesting.
It isn’t just about immigration
Pauline Hanson has spent much of her political career talking about immigration, borders and national identity, and those issues remain central to One Nation.
The party has proposed cutting temporary migration by 750,000 over three years, substantially reducing international student numbers and setting a long-term net overseas migration target of 130,000 a year. Hanson argues that lower migration would ease pressure on housing and public services. Critics argue that such a rapid reduction could create serious workforce shortages in areas including health, aged care, construction, agriculture and tourism.
Those arguments can be debated on their economic merits.
But immigration is only the beginning because Australia is not an island politically simply because it is an island geographically. Its prosperity and security depend heavily upon its relationships with other countries. And One Nation’s policies extend well beyond who gets to live here.
“Australia first” – and everyone else?
One Nation has advocated withdrawing Australia from a number of international organisations and agreements, including the United Nations, the World Health Organization and the Paris Agreement. It has also proposed substantial reductions in foreign aid.
The party presents these policies as matters of national sovereignty and financial responsibility. That is a political argument Australians can judge for themselves. But international relationships work on reciprocity. Countries do not simply decide what they want from the international system. They also decide what they are prepared to contribute to it.
Australia has spent decades building relationships in the Indo-Pacific through diplomacy, trade, development assistance, security cooperation and participation in international institutions. The Pacific is a particularly important example.
Australia’s foreign aid program is not simply charity. Successive governments have regarded development assistance as one of the instruments through which Australia maintains influence and relationships in the region, particularly as China’s presence has expanded.
Reducing that engagement would therefore have consequences beyond the Commonwealth budget.
The question would be whether the financial savings outweighed whatever diplomatic influence was lost.
That is a political judgement.
But there is no doubt that it would represent a significant change in Australia’s approach to the world.
Then there is China
Perhaps the most complicated issue would be Australia’s relationship with China.
One Nation has taken a much harder position towards Beijing than the traditional diplomatic approach adopted by successive Australian governments.
Hanson has described China as a serious military threat and has advocated greater military capability.
At the same time, One Nation has proposed recognising Taiwan as a sovereign nation – a position that would represent a major departure from Australia’s existing approach.
That isn’t a minor diplomatic adjustment.
Taiwan is one of the most sensitive issues in Australia’s relationship with China.
A government could certainly decide that Australia’s existing policy no longer serves Australian interests.
But changing it would inevitably have consequences for Australia’s relationship with Beijing.
And China is not some distant country with which Australia has little contact. It is one of our most important trading partners.
So a Hanson government could find itself trying to pursue a more nationalist and self-reliant Australia while simultaneously taking a harder diplomatic line towards one of the countries with which Australia has enormous economic ties.
Whether that would strengthen Australia’s sovereignty or create new vulnerabilities would become one of the government’s major foreign-policy questions.
And then there is America
There is another complication.
One Nation has been strongly supportive of Donald Trump and has backed AUKUS and Australia’s nuclear-powered submarine plans.
That places the party, at least on those issues, within the broad tradition of Australia’s close relationship with the United States.
But there are also differences within One Nation about how Australia should deal with the world.
That matters because governments require consistency.
It is one thing for a political party to have individual politicians expressing strong opinions about foreign affairs.
It is quite another to have a government whose ministers, diplomats and prime minister must communicate a coherent foreign policy to allies and potential adversaries.
That is one of the great differences between being an outsider and being in government.
An outsider can throw rocks at the establishment.
A government has to explain what it intends to build after the rocks have stopped flying.
Australia has been here before – sort of
One Nation has spent much of its existence as the political outsider.
The ABC recently described Hanson as having retained that outsider status even as the party has attracted increasingly mainstream support. Political historian Benjamin Jones noted that being the outsider has become an important part of the One Nation brand.
There is an irony here.
The very characteristic that helped One Nation build its political identity could become rather more complicated if the party entered government.
Because governments cannot remain permanently outside the establishment.
They are the establishment.
They inherit the public service.
They inherit Australia’s diplomatic commitments.
They inherit treaties, alliances, military obligations and international relationships.
They inherit responsibility for the economy and for maintaining Australia’s reputation as a reliable partner.
And suddenly the people who were complaining about the establishment become the people running it.
That is quite a transformation.
So, would Australia become an outsider?
Not automatically.
Australia would not suddenly become an international pariah simply because Australians elected Pauline Hanson.
The more important question is what a Hanson government actually did.
If it reduced migration, that would be one policy decision.
If it withdrew from major international institutions and agreements, reduced foreign aid, changed Australia’s position on Taiwan and adopted a more confrontational relationship with China, the cumulative effect would be considerably greater.
If it attempted to introduce explicitly race-based immigration policies, the international reaction could be greater again.
That is why Beazley’s warning is worth considering – but not necessarily accepting as a prediction.
He is raising a question about the consequences of a particular direction in foreign and domestic policy.
And those consequences would depend upon the policies actually pursued.
The difficult part about being “Australia first”
There is an understandable appeal in the idea that Australia should put its own interests first.
Every government should put Australian interests first.
The difficulty is defining what those interests actually are.
Is it cheaper foreign aid?
Or maintaining influence among Australia’s Pacific neighbours?
Is it fewer migrants?
Or ensuring that hospitals, farms, construction sites and aged-care facilities have enough workers?
Is it a tougher stance towards China?
Or maintaining a trading relationship while strengthening Australia’s security?
Is withdrawing from international organisations an assertion of sovereignty?
Or surrendering a seat at tables where decisions affecting Australia are made?
None of those questions has a one-word answer.
And that may be the most important thing to remember when considering the prospect of a One Nation government.
Pauline Hanson has spent three decades telling Australians what Australia should stop doing.
Running Australia would require something rather different.
It would require deciding what Australia should do.
And once you are sitting in the Prime Minister’s chair, the rest of the world doesn’t disappear.
It is still there.
It is sitting across the negotiating table.
And it expects an answer.
What would a Hanson government look like?
If you think Donald Trump’s “America First” experiment is happening on the other side of the world, perhaps it is worth looking a little closer to home.
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless independent voice – holding power to account and delivering journalism that matters.
Running this site isn’t cheap. Rising costs mean we need your support now more than ever. Every donation, big or small, keeps our servers running, our writers working, and our stories free for everyone.
Donate here:
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 for hosting and future improvements.
Thank you for standing with us. We couldn’t do this without you.
With gratitude,
The AIMN Team
She’d turn us into a pariah, just as Trump has done to USAnia.
Thanks, a very interesting read.
I really wonder how Hanson’s support base – largely disenfranchised rural and regional – would react when there are not enough immigrant workers in some fields eg.:
– farming
– health care
– aged care
– hospitality
It seems to me that if these fields – and others – are already facing shortages and that the very people who need them will be further disadvantaged.
Unfortunately it appears that if the USA is anything to go by then Hanson will not lose much support because “it’s not her fault”
I would like to say, again, that Hanson is very low on the “list”, but perhaps not a measured cretin, imbecile or black hole. Her Redness has moved on to sponsor supplied planes, better than drafty dodgy brooms. Not one of her known vague policy fogs is a decent one, good for the nation. “We” could be worse off quickly under that rubbishy whining tantrummy bile than is likely in already increasingly difficult times to come. Why encourage an uncivilised undereducated nothing? Foolish. Perhaps an inconceivable national government of our few skilled wiser candidates would try harder and better.
Senator Harridan has reached the pinnacle of her career,such as it is,and will never be anything other than a whingeing, squeaky, bigoted, self serving halfwit.I don’t understand why she gets any airtime, at least from serious observers.
Murdoch’s rubbish love her..she’s one of theirs.Gold plated trash.
Thank you Michael,
What Beasley is essentially asking is for people to THINK about what One Nation is about.
Reading ‘What Happened to Liberal Democracy’, that same question is asked why working class Americans, formerly the solid foundation of Democrat support have voted for Republicans when they have constantly enacted policies which are not in their interests. Reasons suggested include the role of the media, specifically the likes of Fox News, the role of talk show hosts and the inflammatory discourse on cultural politics, race, immigration and so forth… the same sort of rhetoric seen from Hanson particularly, a rhetoric which is essentially divisive.
Hopefully more people will begin to THINK through the issues.
We will see.
An interesting thought just flashed through where my brain should be… Under One Nation, Australia could become the 51st state of the US, instead of Canada.
Is one political party any better than another?
The great dilemma, is any one political party better than another? If so why?
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum have run this country for decades and I’d suggest we have stood still, or gone backwards.
Could the decisions made by Hanson and her crew be any worse than those made by Morrison, Gilliard or currently Albanese?
The political duopoly has taken us where?
I’d vote for the devil, rather than continue with the two party system clinging vainly onto the coat tails of the USA.
Like Farage and Trump the far right cable news and RW MSM concur with her outlook, or more likely, use her to air nativist talking points and soften up the electorate for the LNP to swoop in and benefit; unclear if the LNP can deal with Hanson?
jonangel:
Breaking things is easy. Rebuilding something worthwhile afterwards is a very different thing.
astute comment from andrew smith..
@ Phil Pryor: I think you may have missed the point of the PHONeys; it is all about profiteering from the rich fields of Parliamentary largesse that allow an ”uncivilised [over-educated GPS] nothing politician” to become a millionaire on the public purse. Think the New England MP Beetrooter Joyce, the greatest amoral parasite among many in Parliament.
Take an interest in the scam financing of the dictatorship that is the PHONeys and recognise ”Who gets access to party funds?”
Naturally Pawlean needs another financial source for her overseas holidays, naturally James Ashby is continuing his self-serving career by sucking on the PHONey financial tit, and that other fellow Jones(?)appears to be receiving future financial benefits from alcohol manufacture on land owned by Ashby (and paid for by PHONeys?)
PHON = the Hanson Retirement Fund paid into by gullible Australian voters wanting Parliamentary reform, and the billionaires club demanding future access and control of government policies impacting their personal interests.
So leefe, you propose more of the same?
I’d suggest, nothing ventured, nothing gained.
jonangel:
I propose that you have a workable plan for the rebuild before you demolish everything. Show us the blueprints; show us the costing; show us the details of exactly what you want to remove, how and when, and how that will affect people; show us exactly what you will replace it with and how that will work.
The angry toddler-tantrumish “I don’t like this” destruction makes things worse for everyone unless you can replace it all, quickly, with something demonstrably better.
leefe, I take it from your rambling response, that you are more than happy with the current political scene?
Can I suggest that before you vote next time around for either Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum, you put the above questions to them.
jonangel:
Read the actual words, not what you want them to mean.
“rambling response” – I enlarged on my original remark, to say what is needed before you can justify blowing everything up.
I take it from your dismissive response that you don’t have an answer and are still at the toddler “knock it all down” phase. Get back to me when you grow up. I won’t be holding my breath.
Cocky, I didn’t miss your point about pointing at your point while making some applied points, for the leeching, maggoting, suckerfish Harpy has latched onto a winner, predator dill though she may be. They are a team of turdery treachery trouble trashies, filth on the make and take. As for B Joyce, plop…
Off you go again leefe, more puerile rambling, please tell, just what “actual words”, have I misunderstood?
Seeing as you have failed to answer, as to whether you are happy of not with the current political scene, I take you are a duopoly supporter?
Wich foot have you in your mouth now, the Left or the Right?
jonangel:
Well, to begin with, you seem to be having a great deal of trouble realising that I have not at any point said that I am happy with the ALP/LNP duopoly. If I do not actually say it, and continually point out what my issues with your attitude are, then you have no grounds for assuming it.
Tell us all, honestly, in what way do you think PHON would improve this country? Hanson is even more in the pocket of the billionaire miners – particularly Rinehart – and has consistently voted (on the rare occasions she turns up in Parliament) against any measures that make life easier for the workers and the battlers, so it’s ludicrous to claim that PHON would improve those people’s lives. So how, and for whom, will they make the country better?
leefe, I have never suggested PHON “would improve those people’s lives”, to suggest such, shows once again your ineptitude. Try sticking to the truth, as for the reason I think you are a duopoly supporter, it stems from the fact you seem unable to answer even one of my questions.
As for my attitude, you wouldn’t have a clue.
Ohhh, so you can read whatever you want into what I say, but I can’t do that to you? Ever heard of double standards? Or hypocrisy? What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, etc.
If PHON isn’t going to make things better, what’s the point of voting for them?
” … even one of my questions.”
You’ve asked two questions that I can see. I’ve answered the bit about misreading/misunderstanding. For the other, my voting intentions are none of your business; all I have to say is that neither red, nor blue, nor orange are dealing adequately with the issues that most concern me.
So, could you perhaps consider the possibility of thinking about trying to find an answer for what I’ve asked you? What’s the point of voting for PHON if they aren’t going to make things better for most people?
Here you go again leefe, I have never asked how you voted. I have asked “are you happy with the current scene” I have also suggested, that based on your lack of response to my questions, you are a “duopoly supporter”.
Can I suggest you read what’s writ, before running off at the mouth.
Can I ask a serious question, being, do you know what day it is?
Thursday, 1st October. 2026. here, anyway; you’d get a different answer if I was just east of the IDL.
” … neither red, nor blue, nor orange are dealing adequately with the issues that most concern me.”
But, sure, that makes it obvious I’m a “duopoly supporter”.
Can I suggest you actually think before running off at the mouth?
“Could the decisions made by Hanson and her crew be any worse than those made by Morrison, Gilliard or currently Albanese?
…
I’d vote for the devil, rather than continue with the two party system clinging vainly onto the coat tails of the USA.”
And I’m still asking, in what way would it be made better voting for PHON?
Could Hanson be worse? Well, going on her lack of integrity, honesty, intelligence, education, work ethic, understanding of economics or even basic mathematics … just to begin with, you understand … yes, it would be worse in my opinion. Convince me otherwise.
Has anyone at One Nation come up with an original idea??
It’s all the way with Donald J.
Except maybe for figuring out how to fleece not just the taxpaying public but their own candidates.
They probably sole that too.
Spot on， Kerri Lynn.
Thanks Michael, this article raises the consideration of not just what will be the direct effect of One Nation policies, but also what will be the indirect effects.
Paraguay tried to deepen trade with China whilst recognizing Taiwan, the response from a Chinese commentator was ‘wishful thinking’ and that Beijing would never accept that. Australia would not be considered a sacred cow by China, if One Nation were to govern.
The next election is in ’28, China will very likely have made significant progress in negating the necessity to trade with Australia by then.
leefe, I am pleased you knew what day it was, seems there’s hope for you yet.
I’m still asking the question, jonnyboy: In what way would voting for PHON improve the situation?
You do realise that ? indicates a question, dont you?
Yes, I do, but on reading all past posts between you and I, you fail to, but at least you know the day of the week, so there is hope for you.
The major political parties have failed regional electorates, probably because they accepted the incorrect idea that voters were rusted on to the NOtional$, the political party you have to celebrate no change and a 19th century rural slum future.
The only economic & social advances into the 21st century in New England and Northern Tablelands have occurred when either or both political representatives were local, credible Independent candidates.
Richard Torbay was ”elected” six weeks before polling day, Tony Windsor in New England was the first elected HoR MP in 2000 with 62% of the primary vote.
Kos Samaras tells the story of political neglect of regional electorates that has created the PHONeys push, almost anything must be better than the present two horse race. Then Samaras backs his opinions with hard facts. Read and understand why regional electorates have gone PHONey.
https://johnmenadue.com/post/2026/10/the-one-nation-vote-is-a-map-of-government-neglect/
Donate a $1,500,000+ aeroplane and receive a lease in your buildings (at taxpayer expense??)
The Guardian (051026):
One Nation to establish headquarters in multimillion-dollar Brisbane office bought by Gina Rinehart
Barnaby Joyce defends move, saying party will lease space from mining billionaire’s company at commercial rates.
The One Nation MP said the party’s national head office would pay the market rate to Rinehart’s company to rent the space, claiming there would be no mate’s rates.
Joyce said One Nation would pay for the office space out of the party’s “wallet”. Under parliamentary business resources rules, the commonwealth only pays for office space for elected officials – not political parties.
OTHER MORE RORTS BY PHONeys (Profiteering Hanson Only Noone-else)
Guardian Australia revealed last month that Hanson and Joyce stayed overnight at Rinehart’s $20m Brisbane mansion in April after fundraising events held for One Nation. On one occasion, Joyce conducted a live television interview with Channel Seven’s Sunrise program from a room that appears to be a bedroom in Rinehart’s home.
The reporting also revealed that Hanson has been using one of Rinehart’s bodyguards for her personal security.
The man, who has been seen escorting Hanson in Perth and Canberra, has been one of Rinehart’s closest bodyguards for more than a decade.
One Nation has also committed multiple breaches of Senate rules, with the party failing to declare a number of flights gifted by Hancock Prospecting to Hanson going back to August last year, including flights to attend a Conservative Political Action Conference in Florida and Donald Trump’s Great Gatsby-themed Halloween party at Mar-a-Lago.
In April, Rinehart gifted Hanson a “sexy” new private plane, worth more than $1.5m.
Hanson has said she considers Rinehart an unofficial policy adviser to her and One Nation.
Beetrooter states that:
“We can put on the taxpayers’ ticket but we don’t,” Joyce said. “We always make sure we pay for things ourselves as best we can in One Nation.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/oct/05/brisbane-one-nation-office-multimillion-gina-rinehart-ntwnfb
And everything on her wish list is what Reinhart wants!