Who supports One Nation—and can Pauline Hanson build a sustainable party?

What the numbers say

• Election results. At the federal election on 3 May 2025, One Nation won 6.4% of the national primary vote in the House (0 lower-house seats), and increased its Senate presence (minor parties typically grow here under proportional voting).

• Since the election: multiple polls through October 2025 have shown double-digit national support for One Nation (≈10–13% primary), sometimes rivaling or exceeding the Greens in primary vote share; Resolve’s October reading had One Nation at 12%. These are polls, not votes—but they indicate momentum.

Where One Nation’s vote comes from (demographics, geography, attitudes)

1) Geography: strongest in Queensland and regional Australia

One Nation’s vote has long been centred in Queensland and in regional/rural electorates across several states. That pattern reaches back to its 1990s breakthrough and persists today, with modern results and state contests reinforcing the regional base.

• The Queensland 2024 state election underlined how volatile this space is: One Nation was competitive in parts of regional QLD but remains vulnerable to swings and three-cornered contests. (Mirani, for example, moved away from the minor-party right after years of churn.)

2) Demographics: more male, older, non-university; economically strained regions

Academic work drawing on the Australian Election Study (AES) and election-study literature finds One Nation support skews male, older, lower formal education, and is associated with blue-collar/outer-suburban or regional areas facing economic change. These voters are more likely to report political alienation and concerns about immigration and cultural change.

• The AES and related analyses consistently highlight education and age as strong structural correlates of vote choice in Australia—dynamics that help explain One Nation’s pool of potential voters.

3) Issues and attitudes: immigration, national identity, anti-establishment

From the late 1990s to Hanson’s Senate return, the party has mobilised voters who are sceptical of high immigration, anxious about cultural change, and distrustful of major parties and institutions. While emphases evolve (cost-of-living, Covid-era mandates, energy prices), the immigration/national identity frame remains central.

4) Preference behaviour: often benefits the Coalition

In compulsory-preferential voting, One Nation preferences flow disproportionately to the Coalition—a structural fact that shapes campaign strategies and negotiations on how-to-vote cards. In 2022, for instance, two-party preference flows from One Nation leaned heavily to the Coalition. In 2025, One Nation and the Coalition moved closer on preferencing in many seats, formalising a trend already visible in past preference data.

Can Pauline Hanson build a sustainable party?

“Durability” in Australia’s party system means consistent vote share, institutional depth, leadership succession, and parliamentary relevance beyond a single figure. On those criteria:

1) Electoral system tailwinds (Senate) vs. headwinds (House)

• Senate: Proportional representation gives One Nation a repeatable path to seats with 6–12% statewide support, especially in Queensland and NSW. This has been key to the party’s persistence since 2016.

• House: Single-member districts + compulsory preferences make lower-house breakthroughs rare without concentrated local strength. Even with double-digit polls, converting to House seats is difficult unless support clusters geographically. Analysts noting the post-election polling surge still frame House wins as possible but not guaranteed.

2) Organisation and brand: from “Hanson-centric” to institutional

One Nation’s historical vulnerability has been leader-centric organisation and candidate churn. Recent reporting points to active steps—talk of a future leader and even a possible name refresh—aimed at long-term survival. Such moves acknowledge the need to decouple the party’s future from a single identity while retaining brand recognition.

3) Coalition of the right: competition and cooperation

The Australian right-of-centre space is crowded (Nationals, LNP in QLD, Katter, Family First revivals, Libertarians, and new formations). One Nation’s closer preferencing with the Coalition in 2025 signalled a more pragmatic posture, but it also invited attacks from rival minor parties positioning to its right. Managing this co-opetition—cooperation on preferences while fending off rivals—is essential to sustainability.

4) Recruitment and defections: a shortcut to lower-house relevance?

Speculation about defections from Coalition figures underscores an obvious path to lower-house presence: win MPs first, votes later. If even one high-profile defection held a seat under the One Nation banner, the party’s institutional status and media oxygen would jump. But defections are uncertain and depend on personalities and timing.

5) The post-2025 polling surge: opportunity and risk

The 2025–26 polling moment was propelled by Coalition weakness and heightened concern about immigration. That presents opportunity—but also risk: issue salience can recede, and major parties can steal back themes (e.g., border control, regional investment). Sustaining elevated support requires converting salience into organisation, membership, local candidates, and repeat Senate quotas across cycles.

What would make One Nation durable over the next decade?

1. Institutionalise beyond Hanson. Build a visible, credible successor bench and empower state leaders; proceed carefully with any name change to avoid brand dilution while modernising appeal.

2. Double down on the Senate strategy. Lock in multi-cycle Senate representation in QLD/NSW (and occasionally WA/SA), treating the upper house as the base camp for national relevance.

3. Selective lower-house targeting. Focus on outer-suburban/regional seats where demographic fit, local candidates, and a strong protest vote could lift primaries into the teens and make preferences decisive; expect near-misses before breakthroughs.

4. Manage the right-of-centre ecosystem. Keep preference deals with Coalition parties where advantageous, but differentiate clearly from rivals on signature issues (immigration settings, cost-of-living, energy policy for regional households) to prevent being squeezed.

5. Professionalise candidate pipelines. Reduce episodic problems (vetting controversies, local disorganisation) that have hurt minor parties historically; maintain a community-service profile between elections to keep vote share “sticky.” (General strategic inference from Australia’s minor-party experience.)

6. Broaden the message without losing identity. Polling surges tied to a single hot-button issue fade; a repeatable program on wages, housing supply in regions, small-business costs, and essential services can anchor a wider constituency while sustaining the party’s core themes. (Inference supported by AES structural trends on age/education and issue salience.)

Bottom line

• Who supports One Nation? Disproportionately regional/outer-suburban, older, male, non-university-educated voters who are sceptical of high immigration, disenchanted with major parties, and responsive to national identity and cost-of-living frames.

• Can Hanson build a sustainable party? Yes—primarily via the Senate, with occasional lower-house openings—if the party institutionalises beyond Hanson, cultivates candidates, manages preference politics and rivals, and converts current polling into repeatable structures rather than one-off moments. Recent moves (friendlier Coalition preferencing, leadership planning, brand refresh talk) suggest One Nation is trying to do exactly that.