The party’s polling strength has become more than a protest signal. Each of Australia’s larger parties now has to explain how it would address the pressures drawing voters to One Nation.

One Nation has reached a point where its progress can no longer be measured only by its ability to attract attention. The question now is whether it can turn a substantial national vote into durable representation—and how Labor, the Nationals and the Liberals respond while there is still time to make their own case.

In Roy Morgan’s most recently published federal poll, conducted from 14 to 20 September, One Nation led on primary vote at 25.5 per cent. Labor was on 25 per cent and the Liberal–National Coalition on 21.5 per cent. The Coalition figure comprised 19.5 per cent for the Liberals and 2 per cent for the Nationals. It was the first time One Nation had led this poll’s primary vote in six weeks.

That is a remarkable position for Pauline Hanson’s party. It is also a measure of first preferences in one poll, rather than a prediction of who would govern. Roy Morgan’s preference estimates still put Labor ahead in a contest against either One Nation or the Coalition. In individual electorates, the candidates who reach the final count—and the preferences they receive—will matter enormously.

One Nation: from dissatisfaction to policy

One Nation’s immediate advantage is that it can speak directly to voters who believe established parties have failed to control living costs, migration and pressure on housing and services. Its challenge is to show that its answers would work at a national scale.

The party has recently proposed cutting 750,000 temporary visas, achieving net negative migration for three years and then imposing a net migration cap of 130,000. It has also proposed allowing eligible renters and mortgage holders to receive three percentage points of their future compulsory superannuation contributions as take-home pay for up to three years. These are concrete proposals, with consequences that deserve scrutiny: migration changes would affect employers and essential services, while the super proposal would exchange some retirement savings for income now.

One Nation can argue that it has identified problems others were slow to confront. As its support grows, voters are entitled to ask a further question: what would each proposal cost, and what would happen after it was put into practice?

One Nation also speaks to people who feel less free to voice unpopular opinions. Debates over hate speech and discrimination laws have raised a genuine question about where protection from abuse ends and open political argument begins. The concern that a person could face a complaint for expressing a view may itself discourage speech, even where that view would ultimately be lawful. We cannot measure how much this contributes to One Nation’s support, but the larger parties should take the concern seriously and explain where they would draw the line.

Labor: showing that government can regain control

Labor’s response has been most visible on migration. Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke says net overseas migration has fallen to 292,000 from its post-COVID peak. The government’s stated path is 245,000 this financial year and 225,000 in 2027–28. Its announced measures include tighter student and visitor visa rules, action against migration agents who abuse the system, and priority processing for skills needed in sectors including construction and healthcare.

Labor’s argument is that migration can be better controlled without losing workers Australia needs. Its political difficulty is that voters judge control by what they experience: whether homes are available, services can keep up and household budgets feel manageable. A falling migration number may be an important result, but Labor still has to demonstrate that its wider policies are improving those conditions.

The government also has an opportunity. Roy Morgan’s preference estimates indicate Labor remains competitive even when its primary vote is weak. That gives it room to make a case for governing competence. It does not remove the warning contained in a primary vote of 25 per cent.

The Nationals: defending their regional ground

The Nationals face a particularly direct contest. Their purpose is to represent regional communities, many of which are receptive to arguments about fuel costs, food production, water, housing and the distance between Canberra’s decisions and daily life outside the capitals.

Under Matt Canavan, the party is emphasising those practical pressures. Canavan has argued that high fuel prices hit regional Australians especially hard because driving is often unavoidable. The Coalition’s proposed Fuel Price Shield would temporarily halve fuel excise when a specified oil-price threshold is reached. The broader Coalition plan also proposes a Regional Australia Future Fund and opposition to further Murray–Darling water buybacks.

The Nationals’ task is to make those commitments convincing in the communities they have long represented. One Nation does not need to win every regional seat to alter the contest; attracting enough first preferences could change which candidates survive to the final count. For the Nationals, a national polling figure alone cannot tell the whole story, but it gives no reason for complacency.

The Liberals: presenting an alternative people will choose first

The Liberals face a different problem. As the larger Coalition partner, they must persuade voters that they have a credible plan to govern, while competing for people who are currently giving One Nation their first preference.

Angus Taylor has set out a Coalition program built around lower taxes, cheaper energy, less migration and more homes. It proposes linking migration to housing construction, changing the skilled migration program and reducing building costs. Taylor is also stressing the Coalition’s depth of personnel and experience—a claim designed to distinguish a prospective government from a party gaining support through dissatisfaction.

The test for the Liberals is whether voters see enough substance and difference in that offer to return. Adopting a position on an issue One Nation has made prominent does not, by itself, persuade voters to change allegiance. Taylor must show how his policies would be delivered and why the Coalition is capable of delivering them.

What this progress report tells us

One Nation has made measurable progress. It has led a recent national primary-vote poll and put forward policies that require the other parties to respond. Yet the route from polling support to parliamentary power remains uncertain, particularly in an election decided seat by seat and through preferences.

Labor is trying to prove it can address the pressures from government. The Nationals are sharpening their regional case. The Liberals are presenting a broader alternative government. All three are now being tested against the same public concern: whether Australians can see a practical way forward on the costs and constraints of everyday life.

The Times View

One Nation’s polling is a warning that a large group of voters wants different answers. The serious response is to examine its proposals closely—and require Labor, the Nationals and the Liberals to explain their own with equal clarity. Voters are entitled to more than recognition of their frustration. They are entitled to know what each party would do, what it would cost and whether it would work.