Pauline Hanson’s surge is just a protest vote? The one notion that imperils Liberals
On Friday, former Liberal leader Sussan Ley resigned from parliament. Ley said: “I welcome the Coalition’s immediate re-adoption of many laws. [my] Directions and policies in recent days and weeks.
Ley was reaching a bit. He referred to “clear instructions” set on “tax, industrial relations, energy, national security and families” – but for the most part, all there was so far were “directives”, as he didn’t actually spell out much policy.
Murray Watt, a leading Labor candidate, said: Ley had “warned the cat” that the leader had changed but the policies had not. Labour’s stance was predictable but correct because a similar point had been made even before Angus Taylor took the job: what exactly was he offering that Ley wasn’t?
The problem goes back even further. In the end, what did Ley offer that Peter Dutton did not? So how was Dutton different from Scott Morrison? There are personality differences. However, we are talking about shadows rather than sharp changes in policy. This is true even for climate: net zero through uninvented technologies (Morrison), nuclear (Dutton), and net zero against it (Ley and Taylor) are variations on how to avoid action.
Perhaps rapid change will push Taylor in new directions. The climate is getting worse. Artificial intelligence is advancing. As the weekend attack on Iran confirmed, the rules-based international order is collapsing. But so far Taylor is very much like the Coalition trying the traditional approach once again: “Last throw of the dice for Howard-era Liberalism” messenger of the sun journalist James Campbell put it this way.
The problem is that voters are signaling a desire for something different. In the two elections now, Coalition voters and constituencies are willing to swing to Labour, Turquoise and the Greens. Everything makes sense except liberals. This brings us to the recent rise of One Nation.
Yes, this is partly an expression of dissatisfaction with the Coalition. But remember the turquoise wave in 2022. It took a while, but at some point the political class realized that voters saw not just shortcomings in the Liberals, but potential in the Turquoises. This potential lies in their focus on integrity, equality for women, climate change and society. They took advantage of the protest vote and became something else.
The rise of One Nation is largely perceived as a vote of protest, and to some extent it is. recently SEC Newgate investigation He stated that one of the reasons for 36 percent of those who said they would vote for One Nation was to reject the major parties. But that’s only part of the story. The same survey found that 17 percent talked about immigration policies; 17 per cent refer to defending “Australia’s interests”; 15 percent talk about the party’s policies in general. (Respondents may give more than one reason, so the numbers do not add up to 100.)
In other words, a significant portion of them support One Nation because they are One Nation. Where this is not the case, the truth remains: in protest, voters are willing to support One Nation over other options. The rise of a Nation is a symptom of various things. But sometimes it’s important to point out the obvious: people’s willingness to tell pollsters they’ll vote for One Nation is a symptom of the party’s growing popularity.
This is extremely worrying. A Nation’s business card is racism. His most prominent policy in recent years has been anti-Muslim sentiment. Then you may have predicted its rise by looking at last year’s data. Scanlon Foundation’s social cohesion reportMore than a third of Australians have a negative view of Muslims, it has been revealed. This was before the Bondi massacre. So another obvious fact that needs to be restated: racism is a significant factor in what we see.
How can liberals counter this call? last week Basic survey It revealed one issue where One Nation voters shared the concerns of other Australians, while Liberal voters fell short of the average: “Reducing the gap between rich and poor.”
Anthony Albanese emphasized that Pauline Hanson’s record here was actually poor, pointing to her votes on penalty rates and industrial relations. This is harder for the Coalition to do because they tend to vote the same way. But what if the Liberal Party finds other ways to address inequality? They will never beat Hanson on immigration. But with economic responses, they should be able to leave it behind and reach parts of the country that they cannot currently reach.
But this requires acknowledging that what is needed economically has changed in recent years. Last week former Liberal MP Keith Wolahan warned that “many people in the Liberal Party still have an image that is three decades old”. Some incumbent MPs appear to think the same: last October Andrew Hastie gave a powerful speech defending central planning and condemning his party’s neoliberal enthusiasm for relying on markets. But interestingly, Hastie reversed course last week, saying: Australian “markets always prevail over central control of government”.
Hastie wants to be the next Liberal leader. The interview read like an attempt to reassure colleagues that they knew what they wanted; it was apparently an embrace of Howard economic orthodoxy. In other words, exactly what Angus Taylor promises to serve. Old habits die hard.
Also last week, it was said the review into the Liberal Party’s massive 2025 election loss would never be published. Then it will be difficult to say what lessons have been learned. But we can guess the answer by asking another question: What has changed in the Liberal approach since 2025 or 2022, or even since 2007?
Sean Kelly is a regular columnist and former adviser to Labor prime ministers Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd.
Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up for our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.
Sean Kelly is the author of The Game: A Portrait of Scott Morrison, regular columnist and former advisor to Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd.Connect with: X.
