Can One Nation turn its polling hype into seats in parliament? History shows it will struggle
- Written by: Kurt Sengul, Research fellow, Far-Right Communication, Macquarie University
One Nation is no stranger to the headlines, but it’s been a long time since the party has been talked about as a serious political force. Operating on the fringes of Australian political life for years, suddenly Pauline Hanson is in the news every day.
A significant part of this is the party’s well-documented meteoric rise[1] in the polls. It’s prompted[2] speculation[3] about One Nation becoming Australia’s official opposition party, leaving the Liberals and Nationals in the dust.
But while politics is a fast-moving beast, you only need to look back a couple of years to be reminded of the long history of dysfunction that’s plagued the party.
So will this ascendancy amount to a lasting realignment of conservative politics in Australia? Can One Nation overcome its scandal-ridden past to emerge as the dominant force in Australian right-wing politics?
A tale of peaks and troughs
The 1998 Queensland state election remains One Nation’s electoral high point. It was the only time the party polled above 20%. The election saw the party pick up 11 of 89 seats, propelling it to the third largest party in the state parliament.
But One Nation’s stunning rise was over almost as soon as it started. The party was beset with internal disunity[4], political scandals and poor management. Most of the party’s Queensland parliamentarians abandoned it after demands to democratise the party organisation were ignored[5].
Hanson lost her seat in parliament soon after, narrowly failing to win the newly-formed Queensland seat of Blair at the 1998 federal election.
One Nation managed to gain the upper house balance of power in the 2001 Western Australian state election. However, Hanson’s resignation from the party in 2002 and conviction for electoral fraud in 2003 (later overturned) helped plunge the party into political irrelevance.
Returning to the party in 2014, and the leadership in 2015, Hanson led One Nation to its second breakthrough on the national stage at the 2016 double dissolution election[7]. Four One Nation senators, including Hanson, were elected from just 4.29% of the first preference vote.
But the party was again wracked by defections and scandal[8]. Rodney Culleton, Fraser Anning, and Brian Burston – all elected on the One Nation ticket – abandoned the party after falling out with Hanson.
One Nation was reduced to two Senate seats until the 2025 federal election, where it picked up a seat in New South Wales and WA, bringing the party back to four senators.
What’s driving this polling surge?
It’s useful to think of One Nation’s rising support as a combination of short-term factors and longer-term trends.
In the short term, dysfunction within the (former) Coalition parties and conservative voters’ dissatisfaction with moderate Liberal leader Sussan Ley have been a boon for One Nation.
As she did after the 2014 Lindt cafe siege, Hanson has connected the 2025 Bondi terror attack to immigration and multiculturalism, criticising the government for allowing “the wrong people[9]” to migrate to Australia.
The party has also benefited from increased salience of immigration[11] and national security, connecting housing and cost-of-living pressures to so-called “mass migration[12]”.
Long-term, the party has been buoyed by the mainstreaming[13] of far-right politics globally, profound shifts[14] in media and communication landscapes, and the decline in support[15] of the major political parties in Australia.
Succeeding in spite of itself
One Nation’s polling surge appears to defy conventional wisdom about the viability of a far-right party in Australia.
Parties like One Nation perform relatively poorly compared with their European counterparts. It’s typically assumed this reflects a lack of supply of effective leadership and strong party organisation, rather than a shortage of demand for a far-right party[16].
Of course the test for One Nation is translating their current polling boost into electoral success. If they succeed, it will challenge long-held ideas that features of our electoral system, such as compulsory voting, provide a bulwark against more extreme forms of politics[17].
One of the greatest barriers One Nation has faced to electoral success has been itself. Research[18] has shown the party has a history of serious organisational dysfunction.
One Nation has struggled to properly vet candidates for election. Candidates have resigned or been disendorsed by the party for potential breaches of election law[19] and making sexist[20] and homophobic[21] comments. One candidate made headlines for mowing a swastika into their lawn[22].
Issues of candidate quality have been exacerbated by the lack of on-the-ground support and campaign co-ordination. Recent claims[23] about booming One Nation membership should be viewed sceptically, unless accompanied by actual membership numbers. But most parties, including Labor and the Liberals, rarely publish such figures.
Likewise, claims the party has branches in all 151 federal electorates require qualification. Though a significant milestone for the party, the existence of a branch doesn’t automatically mean there is an active grassroots body able to knock on doors and hand out how-to-vote cards. One Nation has historically struggled with these things, outside of a handful of seats.
On top of this, while the defections of former Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce and former Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi[24] have kept One Nation in the spotlight, Hanson’s history of falling out bitterly with elected representatives (think Mark Latham[25]) raises questions about whether such partnerships can last.
Crucially, this kind of polling – with One Nation well ahead of the Coalition –should bring greater scrutiny from media and voters alike. The problem One Nation faces as it tries to reposition itself from a party of protest to a potential party of government is that people will rightly expect policy detail and costings.
One Nation’s strength is the politics of identity and grievance, not policy substance.
Proceeding with caution
There are many reasons to treat One Nation’s surge with caution. We should be circumspect about prematurely declaring the death of the Coalition parties or a realignment of Australian conservative politics. Infighting and dysfunction[26] have been constant features of One Nation since its inception. There is little evidence to expect this will change.
Yet the scale of One Nation’s support in the polls and the collapse of the Coalition’s primary vote is uncharted territory. Despite its many challenges, the next federal election may for the first time see a well-funded[27] One Nation pose a serious threat to the Coalition’s dominance of the Australian right. If their polling remains above 20%, it’s entirely possible there will be serious pressure to include Hanson in televised leaders’ debates.
Read more: View from The Hill: Hanson nabs ex-Liberal for One Nation’s real time test in SA election[28]
Essential questions remain about One Nation’s electoral viability on polling day. The party’s success will rely on its ability to run a disciplined campaign, endorse quality candidates, and manage intra-party conflicts – all of which the party has previously struggled with.
The first test of whether One Nation can translate polling support into electoral success will come at the upcoming South Australian election[29], where the party plans to field candidates in every seat.
References
- ^ meteoric rise (theconversation.com)
- ^ prompted (www.theaustralian.com.au)
- ^ speculation (www.skynews.com.au)
- ^ beset with internal disunity (www.jbe-platform.com)
- ^ were ignored (antonygreen.com.au)
- ^ Steve Holland/AP (photos.aap.com.au)
- ^ 2016 double dissolution election (results.aec.gov.au)
- ^ scandal (www.theguardian.com)
- ^ the wrong people (www.brisbanetimes.com.au)
- ^ Mick Tsikas/AAP (photos.aap.com.au)
- ^ increased salience of immigration (theconversation.com)
- ^ mass migration (theconversation.com)
- ^ mainstreaming (www.wiley.com)
- ^ profound shifts (oercollective.caul.edu.au)
- ^ decline in support (www.tandfonline.com)
- ^ shortage of demand for a far-right party (www.aph.gov.au)
- ^ provide a bulwark against more extreme forms of politics (www.aph.gov.au)
- ^ Research (www.routledge.com)
- ^ breaches of election law (www.abc.net.au)
- ^ sexist (www.dailytelegraph.com.au)
- ^ homophobic (www.theguardian.com)
- ^ mowing a swastika into their lawn (independent.co.uk)
- ^ claims (www.brisbanetimes.com.au)
- ^ Cory Bernardi (www.theguardian.com)
- ^ Mark Latham (antonygreen.com.au)
- ^ Infighting and dysfunction (theconversation.com)
- ^ well-funded (www.theaustralian.com.au)
- ^ View from The Hill: Hanson nabs ex-Liberal for One Nation’s real time test in SA election (theconversation.com)
- ^ South Australian election (theconversation.com)
