Pauline Hanson’s One Nation has moved from the margins of Australian politics to a position that could reshape the next federal election. Polls during 2026 have placed the party near — and at times ahead of — the Coalition and Labor on primary support. But converting a national protest vote into House of Representatives seats, a disciplined parliamentary team and a credible claim to government is a much harder task.

The party’s rise is real, even if its exact size changes from poll to poll. The larger question is whether One Nation can hold together a coalition of regional voters, mortgage-stressed families, former Coalition supporters and voters who feel abandoned by the major parties — while surviving the scrutiny that comes with being treated as a possible governing force.

A surge that changed the political calculation

One Nation won a little over 6 per cent of the national lower-house vote at the 2025 federal election. Within months, several published polls placed its primary support in the twenties. A Roy Morgan survey conducted from 15 to 21 June 2026 put the party on 31.5 per cent, and estimated a hypothetical Labor–One Nation two-party contest at 51–49 to Labor after preferences.

That result was extraordinary, but no single poll should be read as a forecast. Different polling companies use different samples, weighting and preference assumptions. Later surveys showed some support moving back toward Labor and the Coalition. A July Resolve Political Monitor result reported One Nation at 26 per cent, down three points, while the Coalition rose to 23 per cent.

The movement does not erase the broader trend. One Nation’s support has grown far beyond its result at the last election and has forced both major parties to reconsider how they speak about migration, housing, energy, regional investment and cost-of-living pressure.

Why voters are listening

The strongest explanation is dissatisfaction rather than ideology alone. Australians facing high rents, unaffordable homes, expensive groceries and insecure work increasingly believe that governments are not improving daily life. When voters feel the system is unresponsive, a party promising disruption can become attractive even to people who do not agree with every policy.

An Australian National University survey of 3,662 adults in March 2026 suggested One Nation’s rise may be more durable than a temporary protest. The party was especially strong among voters with low trust in government and in regional communities. Economic anxiety, cultural concern and disappointment with the Coalition have combined into an unusually broad opening.

Hanson also benefits from consistency. Supporters see her as saying the same things about immigration, national identity and political elites for three decades. Critics regard many of those positions as divisive or discriminatory, but longevity gives her an authenticity advantage over leaders whose messages change with internal polling.

Video: Hanson explains the rise

ABC News interviews Pauline Hanson about One Nation’s rise, migration and housing.

The electoral map is the real test

Winning a large national primary vote does not automatically produce a parliamentary majority. Australia elects the House of Representatives seat by seat under preferential voting. One Nation’s support is unevenly distributed and strongest in regional Queensland, parts of New South Wales and outer-suburban electorates.

A party can accumulate millions of votes yet win relatively few seats if that support is spread too thinly. To replace the Coalition as the main opposition — let alone form government — One Nation would need strong candidates, local organisations and preference flows across dozens of electorates.

Analysts have estimated that a pathway to government would require One Nation to dominate a large share of outer-metropolitan, rural and regional seats. That is a far tougher challenge than leading a national primary-vote poll. Labor, the Liberals and the Nationals would also change campaign strategy, preferences and candidate placement once individual seats looked vulnerable.

Can the party build a governing team?

Leadership recognition is One Nation’s greatest strength and one of its biggest risks. Hanson is the brand. Her direct style generates attention, but a national government cannot be run by one personality. It requires a frontbench capable of handling Treasury, defence, health, education, foreign affairs and complex legislation.

A Guardian Essential poll found that 51 per cent of respondents were concerned One Nation did not have a sufficiently skilled team to run Australia. That concern will grow if the party remains near the top of the polls. Voters judge protest parties by the failures of the establishment; they judge potential governments by competence, discipline and detail.

Candidate vetting is another pressure point. Rapid expansion can expose parties to poorly screened candidates, internal disputes and inconsistent policy statements. Every controversy gives opponents an opportunity to argue that One Nation is not ready for executive power.

Policy scrutiny can slow momentum

The party’s first National Press Club address in June brought increased attention to its agenda. Hanson called for major changes to multicultural policy, public broadcasting and industrial relations. Those proposals energised supporters but also revealed limits to the coalition behind the polling surge.

Subsequent Essential polling found strong resistance to several One Nation positions, including shutting down SBS and ending multiculturalism. That helps explain why support can soften when voters move from general dissatisfaction to specific policy choices.

One Nation’s economic message must also become more detailed. Reducing immigration may appeal to voters concerned about housing and infrastructure, but housing affordability also depends on construction capacity, planning rules, tax settings, social housing and interest rates. A governing platform must explain trade-offs, costs and implementation — not simply identify a source of frustration.

Video: a long-form test of Hanson’s case

7NEWS questions Hanson on immigration, party democracy, preferences and whether One Nation could govern.

Preferences may decide the outcome

Under compulsory preferential voting, One Nation must attract second preferences as well as first-choice support. Some Coalition voters may preference it ahead of Labor, while Greens and many independent voters are likely to rank it lower. Major-party how-to-vote decisions could be decisive in close contests.

The Coalition faces the most immediate dilemma. Cooperating with One Nation may help defeat Labor in some seats, but it could also accelerate the transfer of conservative voters away from the Liberals and Nationals. Rejecting preference arrangements may protect the Coalition’s identity while risking seats on its right flank.

Labor’s challenge is different. It must address economic insecurity without validating arguments that blame migrants or multicultural communities for every failure of housing and public services. Dismissing all One Nation supporters as extremists would deepen the alienation that helped create the surge.

Can the rise last until the election?

One Nation has already achieved something important: it has broken the assumption that Australian federal politics is permanently organised around Labor and the Coalition. The party can influence policy and parliamentary strategy even without forming government.

But sustained power requires more than anger at the status quo. Hanson must broaden the party without losing its identity, recruit credible candidates, withstand scrutiny, develop costed policies and prove that support can be concentrated into winnable seats.

The recent dip in some polls is a reminder that momentum is reversible. It may represent normal statistical movement, a reaction to policy scrutiny or voters reconsidering the consequences of a One Nation government. The next several months will show whether the party has built a durable political realignment or reached the high point of a protest cycle.

For now, Hanson’s big bet is that frustration with the major parties will remain stronger than doubts about One Nation’s readiness. That bet has carried the party further than most observers expected. Converting it into lasting power is the difficult part.

More video coverage

Sources