The rise of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation has been meteoric. With the collapse in the Coalition’s polling, its own documented infighting, as well as One Nation’s results in the Farrer by-election and South Australian state election, the party can no longer be dismissed as fringe or marginal or some sort of ‘fad’.
One Nation is here to stay.
The question at issue is how they will fit into the Australian political scene now they are, despite the ABC’s best efforts, a major party by any definition of the term.
Australia’s relative irreligiosity has meant political culture is primarily a matter of economics, and purely social issues are rarely matters of partisan rancour. This is seen as an advantage when compared to the United States. For example, in the wake of Federation, the primary issue of contention was that of free trade versus protectionism. I would argue that today, the parties are primarily divided on the basis of economic demography – parties generally represent economic constituencies defined by how they make money.
The National Party was explicitly founded to be the champion of primary industries. Meanwhile, the Liberal Party was founded to be the party of business, or those who made money through profiting off capital ownership. In the days of Robert Menzies, the party explicitly encouraged middle-class capital accumulation and homeownership (which makes it possible for small traders to use their homes as collateral and thus access business loans), but these days the Liberal Party is (rightly or wrongly) perceived as favouring large and established businesses rather than small ones. Meanwhile, the Labor Party explicitly formed as the political arm of the Trade Union movement and claimed to represent those who made their money through performing physical labour and receiving a wage in return. As the economy grew more technologically advanced and university education became more accessible, a fourth class grew more significant – those with credentialed human capital who make their money through that. This fourth class, perhaps due to the fact they were disproportionately likely to be employed in government departments, comprise the core of the ‘white collar left’ and, whilst common in the Labor Party, are often deeply sympathetic to or outright members of the Green Party.
In the light of this economic demography, one has to ask where One Nation fits. I would argue that One Nation represents two different groups – Labor constituents (i.e. working-class labourers) who believe that the Labor Party no longer represents them, and the ‘Menzies-era’ Liberal constituents (small-to-medium-enterprise businesspeople) who have a similar grievance against the Liberal Party. One Nation may have picked orange as its colour, but perhaps purple would’ve been more appropriate.
This explains why One Nation, despite being called ‘right wing populist’, has a policy platform that is ideologically heterodox. On the party’s website, you’ll find policies about firearms ownership, free speech, medical cannabis, cutting government waste, and reducing welfare fraud that are more classically liberal than what the Liberal Party commits to. At the same time, One Nation’s ‘signature’ policy – immigration – is one in which immigration restriction is supported on the labour advocate basis that inexpensive foreign labourers undercut domestic workers. This concern was, in fact, the reason that the pre-Whitlam-era union movement supported the White Australia Policy (see historian Keith Windschuttle’s work on the subject), and why in 2016 Bernie Sanders (the US’s most famous Democratic Socialist) condemned open borders. One Nation’s insistence on an eight-year waiting period before a non-citizen resident becomes eligible for citizenship (and consequently welfare) is also explicitly oriented towards preservation of the welfare state – a policy priority traditionally held by the left. One Nation also supports more extensive government subsidy of vocational education and apprenticeships and more scepticism towards foreign investment – both policies that have historically been supported by labour-movement parties.
It is no surprise that many working-class Australians no longer feel represented by Labor – the Australian Labor Party, just like the British Labour Party, has become ‘gentrified’ by members of white-collar left. British Labour has frankly betrayed the working classes of Britain – their response to the grooming gangs saga was perhaps the most illustrative example of this, and in the aftermath of that they demanded fictions like Adolescence be played in schools which I believe gaslit the British public into thinking that ‘the real problem’ is white working-class boys. British Labour’s sneering attitude – that of Oxbridge technocrats contemptuously gazing down at a citizenry they see as subjects to manage and morally reform – is seemingly being imported into the Australian Labor Party piece by piece with every land acknowledgement and every 1800-RESPECT ad.
As for the Liberal Party, there is a palpable sense that this party no longer represents the Menzies-era constituency either, hence why the Liberal Reform Association exists. The party’s establishment is seemingly more interested in the policy priorities of the Malcolm Turnbull and Sussan Ley types – chasing clout within wealthy social milieus and doing favours for real estate developers – than it is in enabling aspirational and entrepreneurial Australians whose houses serve as collateral for small business loans. If the Liberals want to stop bleeding support to One Nation, they should return to centring this entrepreneurial middle class, and listening to their rank-and-file membership.
Personally, I will never be able to bring myself to vote for One Nation, even though I agree with a substantial set of their policies. Apart from the fact Pauline Hanson has previously expressed support for certain positions I find repugnant, I am inclined to believe her positions on immigration are driven more by tribal instinct rather than cost-benefit analysis: she shot to infamy as a result of expressing worries over East Asian immigrants, despite the fact that East Asian migrants have successfully integrated into Australian societies. This doesn’t invalidate her present-day worries about the importation of Islamism or Jihadism (these are absolutely serious issues), but it does suggest that she’s right-for-the-wrong-reasons. In any case, One Nation are now a major party and should be accepted as such.
Dr Andrew Russell is an economist and philosopher. His substack can be found at drcasino.substack.com
The post One Nation is here to stay … but where do they fit? appeared first on The Spectator Australia.
