The Pauline Hanson interview. Her dream finally within reach, One Nation leader says: I was right about Asian immigration, I want a 'monocultural Australia' by 2050 and what I'd do immediately if elected PM

By PETER VAN ONSELEN, POLITICAL EDITOR, AUSTRALIA Published: 10:05, 13 July 2026 | Updated: 10:17, 13 July 2026 Your browser does not support iframes. Pauline Hanson is no longer just a protest politician shouting from the sidelines. That might be the most important change in Australian politics right now. After nearly three decades of being dismissed, denounced, mocked, written off, resurrected, written off again and resurrected once more, the One Nation leader now finds herself in territory almost no one in Canberra thought possible. The polls suggest One Nation is not merely hurting the major parties. It is threatening to reorder the political system around them. Hanson's party is now polling within striking distance of Labor's primary vote and it is streets ahead of the Coalition. It outpolled the Liberals in the South Australian state election earlier this year, won the Farrer by-election (a seat the Coalition had never lost), and some polls have even put Hanson ahead of Anthony Albanese as the preferred PM. None of this means Hanson is certain to walk into the Lodge. Australia's preferential voting system, local seat contests and the geography of One Nation's support make that a more complicated equation than One Nation's surge might suggest. But there is no doubt that something remarkable is happening. A party founded in Ipswich in the 1990s, built around the instincts and grievances of a woman who was disendorsed as a Liberal candidate ahead of the 1996 election, is now being spoken about as a potential official opposition, possible kingmaker, and at the very least the most serious populist force Australia has seen in the modern era. And becoming Prime Minister after the votes are counted at the next election cannot be dismissed out of hand. Which is why the Daily Mail caught up with Hanson to ask the questions that now have to be asked: what happens if this is no longer just a protest vote?  What happens if Australians really are preparing to put her in power as the polls suggest is now possible? Pauline Hanson. The One Nation leader has spoken of her immediate priorities if elected prime minister and her hope for a 'monocultural' country by 2050 Hanson's answer is, in its own way, classic Hanson: She is not getting carried away. 'The only polls which really count are elections,' she said. 'We don't take this increased support for granted. Our challenge is to maintain and build on the support One Nation is receiving, turn it into votes, and show that our party can deliver. 'We are actively recruiting quality candidates and developing good policies.' She says about 1,200 people have already applied to be One Nation candidates for the Victorian state election to be held this November. That number, if borne out in candidate quality, is significant. One Nation has often had a problem turning Hanson's personal brand into a durable political machine. It has also had its share of candidate disasters, internal blow-ups and organisational weaknesses. Hanson knows that. She has lived it. For years, One Nation was essentially Pauline Hanson plus whoever was still standing next to her at the time. Now she says the party is trying to become something bigger and more disciplined. Hanson with her key recent recruit, former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce, who has helped in her bid to professionalise One Nation That is the difference between a protest movement and a potential governing force. Protest parties can survive on anger. Alternative governments need candidates, staff, policy, discipline and succession plans. Hanson insists One Nation is building those foundations. But she also makes clear she has not changed her essential message. In fact, Hanson's central argument is that Australia has changed around her. I put it to her that many Australians who once wrote off her party were prepared to consider voting One Nation because of sheer frustration with the status quo. 'I think we may be seeing a fundamental change in the Australian political landscape,' Hanson said. 'I haven't changed in my stance on many issues all these years, particularly with regard to net zero and immigration. 'I think it's Australia which is changing. 'More and more Australians... have now made the connection between government policy and their declining living standards. 'They are seeing changes in their community imposed on them without their say. They want their country back, and they know exactly where I stand: I put Australians first. 'What people want is consistency and truth. They want politicians to do the job they were elected to do: represent them faithfully.' That is the Hanson pitch in 2026. It's not polished. It's not focus-grouped into managerial mush. It's not designed to satisfy the sensibilities of Canberra, the press gallery, corporate Australia or the university sector. It is aimed at voters who believe politics has become a closed shop, that the major parties have converged on the big questions, and that the country they grew up in is being changed without their consent. You do not need to agree with Hanson to understand why that message is cutting through. Housing is unaffordable. Migration has become a mainstream political argument again. Net zero is increasingly contested because of cost-of-living pressures. The Coalition is struggling to work out what it stands for. Labor looks increasingly defensive. The Greens occupy one kind of (very different) anti-establishment politics, while Hanson is now dominating the other. She is also acutely aware that the mainstream media remains suspicious of her, and she feels the same way in return. 'I've never been given a fair go by the mainstream media, which is as much a part of the political establishment as Labor, the Coalition and the Greens,' she said. 'I made this very clear at the National Press Club. Hanson is seen above celebrating the election of Farrer MP David Farley when he was sworn in last month, clinching the seat held by Liberal Sussan Ley for two decades 'I hope I'm included in leader debates. The Australian people have every right to hear from me, especially if we are polling as high as we are now.' That will soon become a real test for broadcasters, debate organisers and the political establishment. If One Nation is polling ahead of the Coalition, or within reach of Labor, can Hanson credibly be excluded from leaders' debates? The major parties might prefer to treat her as a fringe figure. But the voters may no longer be allowing them that luxury. Hanson, though, is now facing a different kind of scrutiny. For most of her career, she has been judged as an insurgent. That gave her enormous freedom. She could attack the system without having to explain every operational detail of what she would do if she ran it. If voters are treating One Nation as a potential alternative government, Hanson has to answer as a potential prime minister. So I asked her plainly: if she won, what are the first three things she would do? Her answer was direct. 'I'll immediately act to slash immigration to reduce housing demand, and scrap net zero to reduce the cost of living,' Hanson said.  'These have been my priorities for many years. 'I'll also move to slash wasteful government spending so we can reduce inflation and hopefully get mortgage rates down.' That is the One Nation governing agenda in miniature: lower immigration, abandon net zero, cut spending. Her supporters will see it as clarity. Her critics will see it as dangerous simplification. But in a political culture addicted to process language, Hanson's bluntness is part of her appeal. The more difficult question is what Hanson means culturally, not just economically. No issue has defined her public life more than immigration. Hanson during her maiden speech in 1996 where she famously said Australia was being 'swamped' by Asians In 1996, her maiden speech warning that Australia was 'in danger of being swamped by Asians' made her infamous. It also made her a political force. Many voters who recoiled from that speech at the time now accept a version of the broader argument about migration levels, social cohesion and whether governments have allowed population growth to run ahead of housing, infrastructure and the country's consent. But the original wording still hangs over Hanson. So I asked her whether she acknowledges that Asians were not the issue, and whether radical Islam is the more serious modern concern. 'When I made my maiden speech in 1996, we had a high intake of immigrants from Asia and the best figures for Asian immigration available were from the 1991 census which showed about 2.8 per cent of Australians were Asia-born,' she said. 'At the last census in 2021, that figure had risen to 17.6 per cent and I expect this year's census will show that figure has soared past 20 per cent. 'I don't think I was wrong about mass immigration from Asian countries.' That answer may be seized on by her opponents. It's not a softening. It's not a careful repositioning. It is Hanson saying, three decades later, that she still believes the warning that made her a national lightning rod was substantially right. Hanson shakes hands with Liberal senator Alex Antic after a debate in the Senate chamber earlier this year But she did then turn to radical Islam as the sharper present danger. 'As we saw at Bondi, radical Islam is the greatest threat to peace, security and safety in the Australian community,' she said. 'It has been allowed to grow and flourish. My policy would ban immigration from countries which have been immersed in radical Islam.' Again, Hanson leaves no ambiguity. That is both her political strength and perhaps her political weakness. To supporters, she says what others will not. To critics, she confirms their worst fears. To everyone else, she now has to show whether hard-edged cultural politics can become a credible governing program in a country that has been officially multicultural for half a century. That question becomes even sharper when she looks to the future. Asked what she hopes Australia will look like in 2050, Hanson said: 'I hope that by 2050 we will have a monocultural Australia that is safe, secure, strong, prosperous, self-sufficient, independent, united and free. 'I love this country and I put Australians first.' That word 'monocultural' has taken centre stage in recent weeks. Hanson used it at the National Press Club and she uses it again here talking to us. It is not a slip-up. It is now central to how she describes her vision. Her supporters will argue she means a shared national culture, a common civic identity, one set of expectations, one loyalty, one Australian story. Her opponents will argue that 'monocultural' is a polite way of rejecting modern Australia itself. Meanwhile the official opposition leader, Angus Taylor, tied himself up in knots recently when trying to tip-toe past choosing which side he sits on, when asked about Hanson's comments. Taylor said that he supports 'a version of multiculturalism', but 'not Labor's multiculturalism'. The equivocating contrasts sharply with Hanson's style. One Nation's fears for the country are just as stark as her concerns about multiculturalism: 'My fear is that we are sleepwalking into Marxism and poverty, unable to grow the food we need, unable to take advantage of our natural mineral and energy wealth, unable to speak our mind, hopelessly divided, dictated to by unelected international bodies, and utterly dependent on an increasingly unstable globalist system,' she said.  This is not the language of managerial politics. It is almost apocalyptic. It is certainly populist. And it's deeply suspicious of institutions. But it is also, undeniably, resonating with a growing number of Australians who believe our institutions have failed. Which is why a fight over parliamentary staffing matters more than the limited attention it gets. Hanson says Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has refused to give One Nation the parliamentary resources it deserves, and she's right. 'We've had no indication the Prime Minister will allow us the staff resources we need and merit,' she said. When a party has more than five parliamentary seats (One Nation now has six) it is entitled to extra staffers in the leader's office, an official party room in parliament, and various other resources that reflect its increased status. The Prime Minister has authorised such allocations for the Greens, as past PMs did for parties such as the Australian Democrats. But when it comes to One Nation, Albanese is now refusing to do so. 'Why the staffing resources of opposing parties are at the discretion of a highly partisan PM is beyond me. It shouldn't be his choice.' This is the sort of inside Canberra issue that usually sends normal people to sleep. But in the current climate, it feeds One Nation's broader argument: that the system protects itself, that the major parties change the rules when outsiders get too close, and that Hanson is still being treated as illegitimate even when millions of voters are prepared to listen to her. Albanese and Labor clearly think Hanson is a threat worth taking seriously. So much so that he's gaming the system against her. The Prime Minister has also been sharpening his attacks, particularly over her language around multiculturalism, Asia and Islam. Labor wants to define Hanson before Hanson defines herself to a much larger electorate. That is rational politics, but it is also risky. Hanson has always benefited when she can turn criticism into proof that the establishment wants to silence her. The more the Prime Minister attacks her, the more he risks elevating her. The more broadcasters exclude Hanson, the more she can claim voters are being denied the chance to hear what she has to say. The more the major parties treat One Nation as a temporary protest vehicle, the more out of touch they look if the polls keep moving her way. There is also the question of Hanson herself. She is 72 years old now. In another era, that might have been considered old for a political leader. In the age of Donald Trump and Joe Biden, it no longer seems quite as unusual. Still, One Nation's future cannot depend forever on one person. Hanson's daughter Lee is widely seen as a possible successor I asked Hanson about succession. Would it be her daughter? Barnaby Joyce? Someone else? Or does she plan to be around for the long haul? 'I can assure you they won't be carrying me out of Parliament in a box,' she said. 'It's important that I get the right people in place to go forward with One Nation before I call it a day. 'I don't believe in nepotism or favouritism. I believe in merit, and that will guide One Nation's choices for its future leaders more than anything else.' That is the unresolved problem for One Nation. Hanson is its greatest asset and its greatest limitation. Her name is the brand. Her story is the movement's emotional engine. Her sense of grievance, resilience and bluntness can't be manufactured by party headquarters or handed to a successor in a briefing folder. But if One Nation is to become a permanent feature of Australian politics, rather than a Hanson vehicle, it needs to survive beyond Hanson herself. She says she understands that. The question is whether the party can do it. For now, though, the immediate story isn't succession, it's power. Pauline Hanson has been in Australian politics long enough to know that surges can vanish. She has seen One Nation rise before. She has seen it collapse. She has been mocked, jailed, cleared, returned, ignored and revived. What is different now is the scale of the opportunity. This time, Hanson is not merely asking Australians to send a message. She is asking them to hand her the tools of government. And unlike so many politicians who reinvent themselves when power comes close, Hanson is not pretending to be something else. But the federal election is likely still more than 18 months away. Whenever it happens, it will be the most important test of Pauline Hanson's career. Not whether she can shock the system. She has already done that. The question now is whether the system has changed enough for her to lead it.