Coherence? One Nation would bulldoze Australian foreign policy

The 2026 Lowy Poll shows (Opens in new window) that Australian support for cultural diversity has fallen sharply from 90% in 2024 to 73% this year. This sharp shift in the national mood helps explain the growing resonance of populist, anti-establishment politics that has benefited Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party.

When mining magnate Gina Rinehart recently gifted Hanson an orange bulldozer (Opens in new window), she explicitly linked it to Elon Musk’s use of a chainsaw as a symbol of cutting the size of the bureaucracy in the United States. The gesture revealed the extent to which One Nation’s brand of Australian populism is connected to a broader set of populist ideas and movements gaining traction across Western democracies.

As support for One Nation surges, with speculation about the possibility (Opens in new window) of a One Nation–Coalition deal to win government, scrutiny falls on Hanson’s views on international affairs and Australia’s place in the world.

The impulses driving One Nation are not unique. Across the populist far-right in Western liberal democratic states, a similar pattern has emerged: scepticism of multilateral institutions, big government, and an inward turn that prioritises protecting the domestic population from the perceived threats of globalisation, migration, and economic interdependence.

Australian media often draw parallels (Opens in new window) between Hanson and Donald Trump, portraying her as channelling a similar style of right-wing populism. But Australian populism operates differently. As Lowy Institute polling (Opens in new window) has shown, Australians don’t necessarily like Trump: Australian trust in the United States to act responsibly in the world has under his administration fallen to the lowest level ever recorded. Hanson may borrow from global right-wing rhetoric on immigration, culture and transgender rights (Opens in new window), but she has developed a distinctly Australian form of populism.

Hanson’s address to the National Press Club (Opens in new window) last week offered some clues about a One Nation approach to foreign policy, although her answers were notable for their lack of detail. One Nation has committed to withdrawing Australia from the United Nations, reflecting a scepticism towards multilateral institutions that is common among right-wing populist parties globally. But when pressed on the broad economic, political and social consequences of such a move, Hanson was evasive. Asked specifically about the implications for shipping rights, she replied: “I’m not getting into that now” and “let’s see what happens at the time.”

We do have some indication of One Nation’s approach to military spending (Opens in new window): it advocates lifting the defence budget to 3.5% of GDP, investing more heavily in drones and missiles. Hanson argued that Australia cannot rely on the United States and must be prepared to look after itself. Yet when faced with the prospect of involvement in the recent conflict in the Strait of Hormuz, Hanson criticised the Australian government for not doing more to support the Trump administration. This prompted Liberal MP Andrew Hastie to accuse her of being “MAGA first (Opens in new window)”.

There is little indication on the One Nation party’s website of how it would manage an uncertain international environment, at a time when concerns about the “rupture” in the “rules-based order” have intensified debate about the need for Australia to deepen engagement with regional partners.

Hanson’s own relationship with Australia’s regional neighbours has been historically troubled. After entering federal parliament in the late 1990s, her first speech warned that Australia was at risk of being “swamped by Asians”.

In One Nation’s current incarnation, following its return to parliament in 2016, the target has shifted somewhat. Much of Hanson’s rhetoric focuses on attacking “mass migration”, with particular hostility directed at Muslim migrants and Islam more broadly. Yet the pejorative framing of the region has never really left her politics. Criticism of migration from India and China remains a consistent thread.

In 2016, then-shadow foreign affairs spokesperson (now Foreign Minister) Penny Wong argued (Opens in new window) that the return of One Nation had foreign policy consequences because Hanson’s rhetoric undermined Australia’s reputation in Asia. More recently, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese argued (Opens in new window) that it is difficult to imagine Hanson negotiating the kinds of agreements that Canberra has pursued with regional partners on energy supply during the Strait of Hormuz crisis.

Hanson’s comments at the Press Club labelling Pacific leaders as corrupt drew a sharp response. Papua New Guinea’s Foreign Minister Justin Tkatchenko condemned (Opens in new window) the remarks as “false and defamatory”, calling them “uncalled for and totally irresponsible”.

The international agenda of One Nation is primarily a collection of impulses: scepticism of international institutions, hostility towards migration, suspicion of regional neighbours, and an uneasy combination of alliance loyalty and strategic self-reliance. Like many contemporary populist movements, One Nation also combines hostility to international aid with an anti-“woke” agenda (Opens in new window), growing opposition to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, and support for rolling back protections and rights associated with gender equality and, more recently (Opens in new window), reproductive freedom.

Such ambiguities might have traditionally posed a problem for a party seeking to govern in Australia. No longer. In a political environment where “vibes” often matter more than policy detail, coherence can be beside the point.

That may be the most telling lesson of One Nation’s rise – the possibility that, for many Australian voters, whether those views amount to credible policy simply doesn’t matter.