Is Pauline Hanson marching Australia towards a Brexit-style hostility to reason?
Guardian AU
β’Tue, 15 Sep 2026 15:00:53 GMT
π° What Happened
Guardian Australia published an analysis by political editor Tom McIlroy on 16 September 2026 comparing Pauline Hanson's approach to Michael Gove's famous 2016 Brexit remark that the public had 'had enough of experts'. The piece recounts that Hanson released One Nation's policy on early access to superannuation a week earlier and proposed major immigration cuts on Monday, and that both she and Barnaby Joyce deflected questions about the economic consequences. Challenged on Tuesday over whether cutting 750,000 overseas arrivals over three years would push Australia into recession, Hanson said she did not really care, asked whether economists should be trusted, and said she did not believe they always get it right, before conceding the policy could reverse economic growth for a couple of months. The article notes she did not address warnings from universities, agriculture and aged care providers that a carefully calibrated migration system would deliver the skilled workers Australia needs. McIlroy also points to Joyce's record as agriculture minister, when he moved the pesticides regulator to his own electorate despite warnings about lost staff and higher costs, leaving bureaucrats to work from a McDonald's for reliable internet.
π The Backstory
Gove's line during the 2016 referendum campaign became shorthand for a style of politics that treats expert warnings as part of the problem rather than information to weigh, and Brexit's long-run economic costs are still being tallied a decade later. One Nation has been polling strongly, and the party's pitch on immigration, housing and cost of living is aimed at voters who are angry at the political establishment and want visible, dramatic change rather than calibrated policy. Hanson has built a career on that register, and the recent policy releases show the party translating it into specific commitments on superannuation and migration. The piece also situates Joyce, a former Nationals minister who has since moved to One Nation, as someone who should know better given his own experience of ignoring advice.
π― Why It Matters
If One Nation holds or grows its vote, the argument goes, policies designed around public frustration rather than modelling would be implemented by a government that would then struggle to run services without the public servants and experts it has attacked. The sectors most exposed to sharp migration cuts, including universities, agriculture and aged care, are warning now because their workforces take years to build. The analysis also makes a broader point about institutional trust: dismissing expertise may win votes, but it corrodes the machinery that any future government, including a One Nation one, would depend on. Readers should treat the projections in the piece as contested forecasts rather than settled outcomes.
Guardian Australia published an analysis by political editor Tom McIlroy on 16 September 2026 comparing Pauline Hanson's approach to Michael Gove's famous 2016 Brexit remark that the public had 'had enough of experts'. The piece recounts that Hanson released One Nation's policy on early access to superannuation a week earlier and proposed major immigration cuts on Monday, and that both she and Barnaby Joyce deflected questions about the economic consequences. Challenged on Tuesday over whether cutting 750,000 overseas arrivals over three years would push Australia into recession, Hanson said she did not really care, asked whether economists should be trusted, and said she did not believe they always get it right, before conceding the policy could reverse economic growth for a couple of months. The article notes she did not address warnings from universities, agriculture and aged care providers that a carefully calibrated migration system would deliver the skilled workers Australia needs. McIlroy also points to Joyce's record as agriculture minister, when he moved the pesticides regulator to his own electorate despite warnings about lost staff and higher costs, leaving bureaucrats to work from a McDonald's for reliable internet.
Gove's line during the 2016 referendum campaign became shorthand for a style of politics that treats expert warnings as part of the problem rather than information to weigh, and Brexit's long-run economic costs are still being tallied a decade later. One Nation has been polling strongly, and the party's pitch on immigration, housing and cost of living is aimed at voters who are angry at the political establishment and want visible, dramatic change rather than calibrated policy. Hanson has built a career on that register, and the recent policy releases show the party translating it into specific commitments on superannuation and migration. The piece also situates Joyce, a former Nationals minister who has since moved to One Nation, as someone who should know better given his own experience of ignoring advice.
If One Nation holds or grows its vote, the argument goes, policies designed around public frustration rather than modelling would be implemented by a government that would then struggle to run services without the public servants and experts it has attacked. The sectors most exposed to sharp migration cuts, including universities, agriculture and aged care, are warning now because their workforces take years to build. The analysis also makes a broader point about institutional trust: dismissing expertise may win votes, but it corrodes the machinery that any future government, including a One Nation one, would depend on. Readers should treat the projections in the piece as contested forecasts rather than settled outcomes.