With One Nation attracting renewed attention, I think it’s worth looking beyond the headlines and examining Pauline Hanson’s actual political record.

A few things stand out to me:

1. Her rhetoric about immigration has remained remarkably consistent.

In 1996, Hanson warned about Australia being “swamped by Asians”. Twenty years later, in 2016, she made a similar argument about Muslims and called for restrictions on Muslim immigration.

2. Her recent comments about Muslim Australians resulted in a Senate censure.

In February 2026, Hanson questioned whether there were any “good” Muslims. She subsequently clarified her remarks and issued a qualified apology.

The Senate formally censured her in March. Interestingly, the Coalition largely opposed the censure, arguing that such parliamentary sanctions should not routinely apply to public commentary.

3. Some of her economic claims have failed independent fact-checking.

Following her June 2026 National Press Club address, AAP FactCheck identified false or misleading claims relating to immigration, taxation and homelessness.

For someone campaigning heavily on cost-of-living pressures and immigration, surely the accuracy of those statistics deserves serious attention.

4. Her appearance on Tommy Robinson’s podcast raised further questions.

During a 2026 appearance on the controversial British activist’s podcast, Hanson linked Australia’s immigration problems to the dismantling of the White Australia policy.

That deserves scrutiny, particularly given Australia’s history and the implications of invoking that policy.

I’m not suggesting that concerns about immigration, housing affordability or government spending are automatically illegitimate. They’re important policy debates, and Australians are entitled to different views.

But there’s a difference between identifying genuine policy problems and making claims that don’t withstand scrutiny.

My question is this: After three decades in politics, should we be paying more attention to Pauline Hanson’s specific policy proposals, evidence and parliamentary record rather than just the controversies surrounding her?

Genuinely interested in hearing different perspectives, particularly from people who support One Nation. What specific policies or achievements influence your assessment?

Sources for the Pauline Hanson Reddit post

1. ABC News – Pauline Hanson’s 2016 Senate speech https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-14/one-nation-senator-pauline-hanson-makes-first-speech-to-senate/7845150⁠

2. ABC News – Senate censure of Pauline Hanson (March 2026) https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-02/coalition-votes-against-hanson-censure-motion/106405622⁠

3. AAP FactCheck – What Pauline Hanson got wrong in her National Press Club speech https://prod-ss.aap.com.au/factcheck/what-pauline-hanson-got-wrong-in-press-club-speech/⁠

4. SBS News – Pauline Hanson’s controversial podcast appearance https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/why-pauline-hansons-appearance-on-this-podcast-is-so-controversial/5gnbwu9aj⁠

As someone on the fence and given both parties have overlapping policies in a a range of areas I’m interested to hear why you prefer one over the other, or why you feel one isn’t right for you while the other is

Professor Bruce Mountain has criticised Snowy Two’s $25 billion cost, arguing that batteries could offer a more flexible and cost-effective alternative for balancing Australia’s renewable-energy grid. He calls for the project to be paused and reassessed despite $12 billion already spent on tunnels and underground infrastructure, questioning its economic value and environmental impact. However, supporters argue that pumped hydro can provide long-term energy storage and improve grid reliability for decades.

He is passing Chifley this week and Fisher very soon...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_Australia_by_time_in_office

Please don’t judge. My family just got our Australian citizenship this July and in November this year we are gonna vote in the first ever Victorian election. I’m a centrist voter having the following thought process

-Not leaning to vote labor, cause of all the lax related approach on crime, plus the ballooning state debt. Also, I really didn’t like the wastage of money on the Suburban Railway Loop (SRL). Plus not really liking the current freebies they start to hand around election time, in a debt heavy state I certainly don’t like this.

- Liberals policies seem really decent, and I like their approach on crime. Jess seems really nice too. But I can’t trust them due to the way they kicked out Sussan Ley and the general approach of the liberal party. I don’t see a very high voltage campaign that should be expected from them. Plus they might align with ON which is a deal breaker for me.

- One nation is a deal breaker for me. I find that woman deranged and dehuman.

-Greens seems to me personally too much immature in their policies.

Planning to leave my ballot blank this election. Thoughts?

Are we heading for our own ‘Make Australia Great Again’ moment?

All the conditions are lining up like 2016 USA.

Discontent with current leaders is rife, there’s fear we’re losing our national identity, and people are pining for the past.

We usually have a political cycle where Labor pushes social issues, then Liberals push the economy, then social issues, then economy etc…

But now Pauline/Barnaby are building strongly.

With the Liberals being so weak, are we heading for our own moment of political change?

(Edit: this is not an endorsement for ON. I‘m centralist. I personally think Albo has done well, and Turnbull was our best PM of recent decades)

I just saw a post from Anthony Albanese talking about how the attack on Helen Haines was horrendous and that we should stand for safe discussion in politics. That seems pretty stand up right?

The comments were filled with people going on about him being bad in the house of reps, him slandering pauline hanson, his party leaking information about Helen, etc etc... they each had at least 1k likes.

Wtf.

Are they all just phon bots trying to cull the competition? With the amount of information thats easily accessible to the public, how she votes in the senate and who she's connected to. The average australian should be able to tell that she's grabbing power only in the interest of herself, right?

Snowy Hydro CEO Dennis Barnes discusses the rising cost of the Snowy Two project, with the revised forecast reaching $22.2 billion and a $25 billion allowance. He addresses the challenges behind the cost blowout, the project's progress and the target of completing commissioning by the end of 2029, while explaining why Snowy Two remains critical to Australia's energy future and its role in providing around half of the nation's future grid storage capacity.

https://youtu.be/zMh-Jq6tIDk?t=341 "Renewable backed by ... "

With full acknowledgment of the increased risks that come with a platform, politics, and a voice on issues where the world is divided:

There is a distinct variation in what the attack on Helen Haines appears to have brought about in response from (female especially) politicians.

Version 1: acknowledging this risk is real. Terrifying. And sharing personal experiences of and with it

Version 2: some variation of realisation that woman can feel unsafe. as if this is unique, never known to them, or anyone, before they woke up this morning. Alongside an expectation of sympathy they never showed to those who experienced it before, politician or not.

Australia's gas industry, a national titan that's one of the country's biggest exporters, has been in the headlines for years but for the wrong reasons. Now, with a federal gas reservation scheme on the horizon, the industry's united front is splintering, revealing deep frustrations with one player - Santos. Saul Kavonic, head of energy research at MST Financial says the tensions stem from the once-in-a-generation investment boom that opened up the country's east coast gas market to exports. GLNG, or Gladstone LNG, is one of three giant gas export plants built on Curtis Island in Queensland last decade. It is operated by Santos and counts South Korea's KOGAS and Malaysia's PETRONAS among its investors. Saul Kavonic says Santos was alone in building its plant without having the gas to fill it and needed to buy gas out of the domestic market just to meet its contracts. Grattan Institute analysis of ACCC data shows GLNG is the only Queensland exporter to have consistently taken more gas from the domestic market than it provides. It's all a far cry from the way Santos pitched the project to governments and the public. At the time, Santos stressed GLNG would have "no direct implications for domestic gas prices" and that it would "not divert gas from local markets to export markets". The company told regulators the development was "therefore unlikely to contribute to a future shortage of gas in the domestic market". But even as Santos was assuring the public on one hand, it was telling shareholders a very different story. Investor presentations from 2011 show Santos knew opening Australia's eastern market to exports would lead to "permanent … upward pressure on gas prices". As one of Australia's biggest oil and gas operators, it said this exposure would transform Santos' fortunes and be a commercial boon.

Former company insiders say Santos always knew it lacked the gas reserves to fully supply the current plant. While one former minister acknowledges GLNG should never have been approved without domestic supply obligations. Federal Resources Minister Madeleine King said the best time to have introduced a domestic reservation policy on the east coast was before that export industry commenced. But she declined to be drawn on the historic decisions made by Santos and GLNG. She says the government is not interested in pointing the "finger of blame" at any one player and that "gas exploration is complex".

The former boss of Woodside, Peter Coleman ruffled feathers in 2017 when he warned the industry would risk its social licence if it allowed shortages to emerge and prices to rocket. He said "what we've seen over the last 10 years is now those words play out ...The companies have a license or a right to develop it, but at the end of the day, the resource itself is owned by the people and we have an obligation to ensure that endowment is used in the best way possible."

Paul Farrow, the national secretary of the Australian Workers Union, says the company knew all along it did not have sufficient gas resources to cover its export commitments. He says the consequences of that decision have been disastrous for gas users such as manufacturers, many of whom employ his members.

Santos said it had historically contributed the most of any exporter during winter and neither GLNG nor the Queensland LNG industry had caused gas shortages or price spikes. A spokesperson said GLNG does not intend to contract new gas supply from the domestic market to meet any LNG shortfalls from this year onwards.

With a draft reservation plan due within weeks, the federal government say it's determined to secure the equivalent of 20 per cent of LNG exports for the local market and won't jeopardies exporters' contracts to do it. Saul Kavonic says Santos will use its formidable lobbying skills to escape – or kill – any reservation policy on the grounds of sovereign risk. But he argues the original investors knew the risks all along and said shaky industry support for the scheme will crumble unless the government includes GLNG.

Why would Australia choose to pay international prices for gas when a better option is available? | APA Group 25 March 2025 - For a country so rich in natural gas resources, it would be inconceivable to most domestic consumers that governments are considering liquid natural gas (LNG) import terminals to resolve potential gas shortfalls on the east coast.

See what's happening in Nigeria's $20 Billion Bet Against Its Own Oil Mafia - YouTube