Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ)
One Nation’s surge in popularity since the December 2025 Bondi terrorist attack shows no sign of abating. After decades on the political fringe, one recent poll has even suggested Hanson is now the preferred prime minister.
The consistently high polling has been matched with success at the South Australian state election and the federal byelection for Farrer. A significant RedBridge poll has suggested that if an election were held today, One Nation would win the second largest share of lower house seats, and officially replace the Coalition as the opposition.
This tectonic change in the political landscape has naturally spooked both Labor and the Liberal Party, the latter of which faces the prospect of annihilation. Embracing this new political gravitas, Pauline Hanson addressed the National Press Club to outline her vision.
Critics of One Nation were quick to point out questionable logic and outright errors in Hanson’s speech. Her claims that migration is in a “state of crisis” and is a major factor on housing has already been discredited.
The suggestion there is a “growing language problem” because about 23% of Australians speak a language other the English at home misleadingly suggests they cannot also speak English. The Age, Australia Institute, and other media published fact check articles refuting these and many other claims that distort or ignore evidence.
Of course, journalistic fact checking serves a vital function in a democracy, but this alone is unlikely to stop One Nation’s momentum. The new political power In a post-truth world, the emphasis is on how a politician makes voters feel, even if their claims are technically incorrect.
Populist leaders like Hanson do not draw their appeal from policy positions but from an emotion-based “us versus them” narrative that divides society into those who belong and those who do not. Dutch academics have described this as the “authentic us” and the “alien them”.
Another key element in populism is a nostalgic nationalism, the sense that everything was somehow better in the imagined “good old days”. In an Australian context, this includes the restrictive immigration system under the white Australia policy, which was in place for the first seven decades after Federation.
In a post-truth context, pointing out that migrants are not a major factor in the housing crisis or that Hanson’s figures on those who do not speak English were inflated by including babies, is unlikely to dent her support.
Hanson – like everyone in public life – should have their claims scrutinised by the press and ultimately by voters. But it’s important to recognise her appeal stems from emotional connection, not factual accuracy.
What is a post-truth world? The word post-truth was popularised in the United States in 1992 by playwright Steve Tesich.
In the wake of the Watergate and Iran-Contra scandals he noted: We came to equate truth with bad news and we didn’t want bad news anymore, no matter how true or vital to our health as a nation.
He went on to warn that a political environment where feelings matter more than facts is a breeding ground for authoritarianism. Following the election of Donald Trump in 2016, post-truth became a ubiquitous term, and was the Oxford Dictionaries word of the year.
It described it as a situation where “objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief”. As a concept, post-truth is an important avenue for understanding political and historical discourse.
In 2021, History in a Post-Truth World, highlighted that it is not the same as lies or propaganda. These are deliberate attempts to deceive. The key characteristic of post-truth is not hostility but indifference to facts.
The book offers this definition: Post-truth history is the communication of false information on a historical phenomenon that appeals to emotion and personal belief, where both the purveyor and recipient are indifferent to historicity and contemptuous of expert opinion that contradicts it, and where the underlying objective is ideological, especially in support of a collective identity or a political programme.
The Trump model Much of Trump’s success in the United States has been couched in an indifference to historical truth.
While fact checkers can point out inconsistencies and errors in his claims, this does not affect his support, which is based on the emotional appeal of going back to a mythical past to Make America Great Again.
Hanson and populist leaders around the world have sought to emulate this success. Fraser Anning, who was elected to the Senate on a One Nation ticket before leaving the party, used his maiden speech to call for a return to white Australia.
Hanson’s Press Club speech did not go that far, but rejected multiculturalism and called for a return to a state-enforced monoculture. One Nation’s anti-immigration stance had only fringe appeal for decades. But as Josh Sunman and Emily Foley have argued, the housing crisis, cost of living pressures, a growing distrust in politicians and even democracy itself has created a perfect storm for populism.
In this post-truth environment, many are being drawn to the emotional narrative of making Australia great again. How can Labor and the Coalition respond? High levels of support for One Nation has created an existential crisis for the established conservative parties, but many Labor seats are also under threat.
For both Labor and the Coalition, winning back One Nation voters will depend on their ability to not only produce better policies to combat housing and cost of living pressures, but on their emotional appeal.
In How to Win an Election, academic Chris Wallace argues successful parties must do the substance and theatre of politics well. As established parties of government both Labor and the Liberals have a rich history they can draw on to provide emotional appeal.
On the Labor side, generations of voters have drawn inspiration from Ben Chifley’s Light on the Hill speech. Addressing the 1949 Labor Party conference, Chifley outlined a vision that was greater than a particular policy or election.
He stressed that the labour movement was about the dignity of work and building a better future, not only in Australia but around the world. Similarly, the Liberal tradition has been intellectually nourished by Robert Menzies’ Forgotten People broadcasts.
These reflections on the power of individual innovation and what citizens can achieve would help form the emotional appeal of his new party and see it enjoy its longest period in government. Over the decades, thousands of volunteers have donated countless hours to campaign for Labor and the Coalition.
With declining memberships and primary vote numbers, both should reflect on how they became major parties in the first place. In a post-truth environment, the major parties need supporters with an emotional investment – not in a particular leader or policy, but in the underlying philosophy.
Hansonite populism is built on a narrative that our politicians and democratic institutions are corrupt and that a major change is needed. Too often politicians, especially in opposition, have fed into this narrative. As a result, the 2025 Australian Election Study suggested only 32% of people have any trust in government.
To resist One Nation’s Trumpian claims that the swamp needs to be drained by an outsider, both sides of politics would do well to send a positive emotional message. They need to remind voters that Australia is a prosperous nation with a robust and stable democracy.
Fact-checking remains important. But voters are guided by their heads and their hearts. Especially in a post-truth world, politicians must appeal to both.
Benjamin T. Jones does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/06/24/fact-checking-is-good-journalistic-practice-but-it-will-do-nothing-to-stop-the-rise-of-pauline-hanson/