Since World War II, Australia’s political landscape has seen minor parties influence government outcomes primarily through preference flows. Historically, the Democratic Labor Party (DLP) and the Greens have been the most successful of these, coming from opposite ends of the political spectrum. Now, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation is emerging from the right, positioning itself as a key player ahead of the next federal election.

Hanson has publicly stated two main objectives for One Nation: to enter government and to unseat the incumbent Labor Party, led by Anthony Albanese. However, how a strong One Nation vote will affect Labor’s chances is uncertain and largely hinges on how voter preferences are directed.

Recent polling provides some insight. A Newspoll shows Labor and One Nation tied on a 29 percent primary vote, with the Coalition trailing at 18 percent and the Greens at 14 percent. Although there is still ample time before the election, the Coalition faces the challenge of regaining primary vote ground ahead of One Nation. The trajectories of independent candidates and smaller parties also remain unpredictable.

The impact of preference flows is evident from Australia’s political history. The DLP, which split from Labor in the 1950s, primarily drew its support from former Labor voters but directed preferences to the Coalition, contributing to keeping Labor out of office until 1972. Conversely, the Greens, established in the 1990s under Bob Brown with an environmental focus, have become closer to Labor, with approximately 88 percent of Greens preferences flowing to the ALP, according to electoral analyst Antony Green. This dynamic supports Labor, especially in states like Victoria.

One Nation, however, has yet to demonstrate the kind of preference discipline seen with the DLP or Greens. The party’s recent surge in support, particularly between December 2025 and early 2026, corresponds with several national events that have influenced public sentiment. Notably, the December terrorist attack targeting the Australian Jewish community and ongoing protests related to Israel’s military actions in Gaza have been factors. These developments, combined with broader concerns such as the cost of living, have contributed to One Nation’s gains, especially in urban centers like Melbourne and Sydney.

Efforts to counter One Nation’s rise, such as a $600,000 campaign by the left-leaning group GetUp targeting five Labor-held seats in Melbourne, have so far met with limited success, as reflected in the May 2026 Farrer by-election result.

Despite Hanson’s lack of formal higher education, she has cultivated a reputation for straightforward messaging and has openly expressed strong opposition to radical Islam, citing concerns about women’s rights and social freedoms. However, Hanson remains steadfast in controversial past remarks, including her 1996 claim about Australia being “swamped by Asians,” and has yet to present a detailed economic platform.

Internal party cohesion also appears fragile. David Farley, recently elected as a One Nation candidate in the Farrer by-election, publicly disagreed with Hanson on immigration policy, raising questions about party discipline and unity. While the party counts experienced figures such as MP Barnaby Joyce and director James Ashby among its ranks, it currently lacks the cohesiveness and broad appeal of the Coalition, which features seasoned politicians like Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan.

Looking ahead, One Nation is poised to win Senate seats and potentially several House of Representatives seats in the forthcoming election. However, its rising vote shares may not translate into government, particularly if its preferences flow unpredictably. The party’s growth could inadvertently facilitate a third term for Labor if preference flows favor the incumbent. The shifting dynamics underscore the complex role minor parties continue to play in shaping Australia’s federal political landscape.