In the landscape of Australian politics, few entities have stirred as much controversy and division as Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party. Established in 1997, One Nation has carved out a niche characterised by its populist, nativist, and anti-immigration rhetoric. Often likened to global populist phenomena, such as Donald Trump and the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), One Nation’s role in shaping the political discourse in Australia is both significant and contentious. This analysis delves into the ways in which Hanson’s party serves as a pale imitation of Trump’s brand of populism, contrasts with UKIP’s strategic focus, and ultimately acts as a drag on the Australian political landscape.

1. Introduction: Contextualising One Nation’s Populism

Populism thrives on the dichotomy of “the people” versus “the elite,” leveraging societal grievances to galvanise support. In Australia, One Nation has embodied this narrative, tapping into fears surrounding immigration, multiculturalism and globalisation. From Hanson’s infamous 1996 proclamation that Australia was being “swamped by Asians” to her more recent critiques of Muslim communities, her rhetoric has resonated with disenchanted voters, particularly in rural and regional areas. While comparisons to Donald Trump – whose populism has transformed American politics – and UKIP – known for its pivotal role in the Brexit movement – are common, they expose One Nation’s limitations. Unlike the transformative impacts of Trump and UKIP, One Nation’s derivative nature, lack of charisma, and organisational frailties have constrained its influence. This discussion explores these dynamics, arguing that One Nation’s imitation of Trump, its parallels and contrasts with UKIP, and its role in normalising racism collectively hinder Australia’s political and social progress.

2. Hanson’s Populism: A Pale Imitation of Donald Trump

2.1. The Roots of Hanson’s Populism: Derivative and Unoriginal

At its core, Hanson’s populism is steeped in nativism and anti-elite sentiments that echo historical Australian prejudices. Her initial foray into politics, marked by her 1996 maiden speech, invoked themes familiar to Australian nativism but lacked the innovative framing that characterised Trump’s approach. The latter’s “Make America Great Again” slogan, while vague, struck an emotional chord and showcased his media-savvy persona, allowing him to dominate narratives across platforms. In contrast, Hanson’s reliance on traditional media and attention-grabbing stunts – such as donning a burqa in Parliament – comes across as contrived and opportunistic. Her policy proposals, primarily focused on restricting immigration and criticising Indigenous welfare, lack the depth and coherence found in Trump’s economic nationalism.

2.2. The Charisma Deficit

Charisma plays a pivotal role in the success of populist leaders, enabling them to forge emotional connections with their supporters. Trump’s larger-than-life persona, cultivated over decades in the media, projected a sense of strength and authenticity that maintained his loyal base through numerous controversies. Conversely, Hanson’s delivery, often shrill and grievance-driven, alienates as many potential supporters as it attracts. Unlike Trump, who adeptly shifted focus between economic and cultural issues, Hanson has remained fixated on immigration and multiculturalism for nearly three decades, demonstrating little evolution in her approach. This stagnation highlights her charisma deficit, reflected in One Nation’s inconsistent electoral performance.

2.3. Comparative Shortcomings

The success of Trump can be attributed to his ability to reshape the Republican Party, dominate media cycles, and build a sophisticated campaign infrastructure. In stark contrast, One Nation is plagued by factionalism and candidate scandals, lacking the professionalism that has marked Trump’s rise. While Trump’s unrefined demeanour was a deliberate rejection of political correctness, Hanson’s petulant style appears less strategic, reinforcing her status as a derivative figure. Furthermore, her failure to leverage digital platforms effectively limits her reach, rendering her a mere shadow of Trump’s transformative populism.

3. Comparative Analysis: One Nation vs. UKIP

3.1. Origins and Ideology

• One Nation: Founded in 1997, One Nation emerged from Hanson’s anti-immigration rhetoric, exploiting rural economic decline and opposition to multiculturalism. Its ideology is a blend of right-wing populism, nativism, and protectionism, framing “ordinary Australians” against a perceived cosmopolitan elite, immigrants, and Indigenous policies. This context is situated within Australia’s post-1970s multicultural framework and economic reforms.

• UKIP: Established in 1993, UKIP centered its agenda on Euroskepticism, advocating for the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. Under the leadership of Nigel Farage, UKIP broadened its appeal to include anti-immigration and nationalist themes, resonating with working-class voters in post-industrial areas. Its ideology combines Euroskeptic populism with nativist and libertarian elements, responding to EU integration and rising Eastern European migration.

• Comparison: Both parties share populist and nativist characteristics, targeting similar demographics and framing elites as betrayers of “the people.” However, UKIP’s clear focus on Euroskepticism provided a tangible goal (Brexit), whereas One Nation’s anti-multiculturalism remains broad and less defined. One Nation’s rhetoric is overtly racial, targeting Asians and Muslims, while UKIP’s narrative, although anti-immigrant, maintained a veneer of policy legitimacy through its focus on EU migration.

3.2. Electoral Performance

• One Nation: One Nation peaked in 1998, capturing 22.7% of the vote in Queensland and 8.4% federally. It saw a resurgence in 2016, garnering 9.2% in Queensland and winning four Senate seats. As of 2025, the party polls between 5-10% federally and holds two Senate seats, constrained by Australia’s two-party system and preferential voting dynamics.

• UKIP: UKIP’s high point occurred during the 2014 European Parliament elections, where it achieved 27.5% of the vote and secured 24 seats. In the 2015 general election, it garnered 12.6% of the vote, translating to 3.8 million votes. However, following Brexit, its support plummeted to below 2% by 2019, overtaken by Reform UK, reflecting the limitations of the UK’s first-past-the-post electoral system.

• Comparison: UKIP’s broader vote share and the successful drive for Brexit surpass One Nation’s regional, Senate-focused presence. While One Nation’s longevity contrasts with UKIP’s post-Brexit decline, it reflects Hanson’s personal brand rather than a coherent political movement.

3.3. Policy Influence

• One Nation: The party’s primary policy influence lies in its impact on immigration debates, pressuring the Coalition towards stricter measures such as offshore detention and immigration caps. Issues surrounding “African gang” crime and “cultural compatibility” illustrate its mainstreaming of anti-immigrant sentiment, although its overall policy impact remains limited.

• UKIP: UKIP’s most significant achievement was the successful push for Brexit, compelling the Conservative Party to adopt a Euroskeptic stance. Its anti-immigration rhetoric also influenced policies like the “hostile environment.” However, its influence waned in the post-Brexit landscape.

• Comparison: While UKIP’s victory in Brexit dwarfs One Nation’s rhetorical influence, the latter continues to shape immigration discussions in Australia. UKIP’s single-issue focus provided clarity and direction, whereas One Nation’s diffuse grievances dilute its overall impact.

3.4. Societal Impact

• One Nation: The normalisation of anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric associated with One Nation has empowered far-right groups and contributed to an increase in hate crimes, as documented by the Australian Human Rights Commission. Its rhetoric undermines Australia’s multicultural ethos, fostering division and mistrust among communities.

• UKIP: UKIP’s anti-immigrant framing during the Brexit campaign fuelled a 41% spike in hate crimes, as reported by the Home Office in 2016. Its nostalgic nationalism exacerbated societal divisions, although its influence diminished post-Brexit.

• Comparison: Both parties normalise nativism, yet One Nation’s overt racism and sustained presence make its impact more insidious compared to UKIP’s intense but temporary influence. Australia’s multicultural framework somewhat mitigates One Nation’s effects compared to the UK’s post-Brexit fragmentation.

4. One Nation’s Impact on Australian Politics and Society

4.1. Electoral Performance: Persistent but Limited

One Nation’s electoral history reflects its ability to tap into cultural and economic discontent, yet its growth remains constrained. Its initial success in Queensland in 1998 and resurgence in 2016 highlight its appeal among rural and working-class voters. However, internal dysfunction and Australia’s two-party system limit its broader coalition-building efforts.

4.2. Policy Influence: Rhetorical Pressure

The primary avenue for One Nation’s policy impact lies in its influence on immigration and multiculturalism debates. By pushing the Coalition towards harder-line measures, One Nation has mainstreamed anti-immigrant sentiment, evidenced by discussions surrounding “African gang” crime and the concept of “cultural compatibility.”

4.3. Normalisation of Far-Right Rhetoric

One Nation’s most troubling legacy is the normalisation of xenophobic and racist discourse. Hanson’s rhetoric has emboldened far-right groups and lent legitimacy to extremist views. The rise in hate crimes against marginalised communities correlates with One Nation’s high-profile rhetoric, marking a significant societal consequence.

4.4. Societal Consequences

The party’s divisive framing undermines Australia’s multicultural ethos, creating mistrust among minority communities and exacerbating rural-urban divides. By amplifying fear and resentment, One Nation contributes to a climate of intolerance, distracting from pressing issues such as climate change and economic inequality.

4.5. A Drag on the Body Politic

One Nation acts as a drag on Australian politics by coarsening public discourse, deepening societal divisions, and diverting attention from critical challenges. The pressure it exerts on mainstream parties to adopt right-wing policies risks alienating moderate voters and tarnishing Australia’s inclusive reputation.

5. Synthesis: One Nation in Global Context

One Nation’s positioning within global populism reveals both its similarities to and differences from Trump and UKIP. While Hanson leverages anti-elite and nativist sentiments akin to Trump, her lack of charisma and strategic acumen renders her a mere shadow of his transformative impact. Similarly, UKIP’s focused approach towards Brexit contrasts with One Nation’s diffuse grievances and organisational weaknesses, limiting its potential for meaningful influence. Both parties normalise far-right rhetoric, but One Nation’s overt racism and enduring presence amplify its societal impact, while UKIP’s was more transient.

One Nation’s drag on Australian politics stems from its empowerment of divisive ideologies and distraction from substantive governance. Unlike Trump, who reshaped the Republican Party, or UKIP, which achieved Brexit, One Nation’s legacy is one of polarisation without progress. Its persistence, driven by Hanson’s personal brand, ensures ongoing influence, yet its failure to evolve or broaden its appeal keeps it on the margins. As Australia faces a diverse, globalised future, One Nation’s cheap populism underscores the urgent need for inclusive, forward-looking leadership to counter its corrosive effects.

6. Conclusion

In conclusion, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation embodies a cheap, derivative form of populism that pales in comparison to Donald Trump’s transformative impact and shares only partial parallels with UKIP’s success. Its lack of originality, limited charisma, and organisational weaknesses constrain its electoral and policy influence, yet its normalisation of racist discourse and empowerment of far-right ideologies have profoundly damaged Australian politics and society. By coarsening public debate, deepening divisions, and undermining multiculturalism, One Nation serves as a drag on the body politic, distracting from critical issues and eroding social cohesion. Compared to UKIP’s Brexit-driven legacy, One Nation’s impact is less dramatic but more enduring, reflecting its ability to exploit persistent cultural anxieties. To mitigate its influence, mainstream parties must address the economic and social grievances fueling its support while reaffirming Australia’s commitment to inclusivity and constructive governance.