Category: MIL-OSI

Amid revelations of Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s association with Jeffrey Epstein, the Australian government and media have entirely lost control of the Israel narrative.

As thousands massed around the country tonight to protest against the visit of President Herzog, the government’s claims of fostering “social cohesion” are a shambles.

The mainstream media, too. Any remaining shred of credibility shattered.

Amid the soft-shoe interviews published over the weekend, did any of them bother to ask Herzog whether he was the Herzog in the email from Jeffrey Epstein?

The Herzog “coming to the island this weekend” with former Israel PM and Epstein confidante Ehud Barak?

It appears not. What of the “ceasefire” in Gaza, where dozens are still being slaughtered daily, or the destruction of UN infrastructure, West Bank land theft, allegations of organ harvesting of Palestinians, and prison torture? Any questions?

There is no record of it from the “journals of record”.

Instead, blatantly peddling the tired rhetoric of the government and Israel lobby, critics of Herzog are branded by Herzog in the Murdoch press as

waging a brainwash campaign against Jews.

While in the Nine papers, The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald debunked critics as “futile fury” and had the Israel president calling for a new dawn which would “reignite the passion and love between our nations”.

The plain fact of the matter is that Australians, like most people in the world, don’t like genocide.

They don’t like apartheid either, or lies.

By the time Isaac Herzog turned up at the International Convention Centre (ICC) this evening for “an evening of light and solidarity”, hundreds of thousands of Australians were protesting across the country.

How long can politicians and lobbyists continue to peddle the line that the protesters are tearing up the social cohesion, not themselves?

Herzog sponsors – IDF links
Sponsoring tonight’s dinner at the ICC are Australian charities involved in funding the IDF, which is in turn accused of myriad war crimes and genocide.

Founded in 1927, the ZFA describes itself as the peak body representing Zionist organisations in Australia, with more than 200 affiliated groups. It is the Australian branch of the World Zionist Organisation (WZO)

In its 2024 financial report, the federation said it was dependent on funding from the WZO and Keren Hayesod for “the majority of its revenue used to operate the business”. The ZFA also maintains an office in Israel.

The WZO has long played a role in Israeli settlement policy.

Israeli advocacy group Peace Now says the WZO’s Settlement Division, funded by the Israeli government, has since the 1970s helped plan, finance and manage illegal settlements and outposts in the West Bank, including administering land transferred to settlers.

Ties to UIA and JNF
The ZFA’s constitution commits it to supporting the fundraising of two bodies it calls the “National Funds”: Keren Hayesod — United Israel Appeal (UIA) and Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael — Jewish National Fund (JNF).

It states that one of the Federation’s objects is “to support the fundraising activities of the National Funds”, and that state Zionist councils must take steps to ensure the “maximum success” of United Israel campaigns.

An investigation by Michel West Media found that UIA and JNF have been funnelling hundreds of millions of dollars in tax-deductible donations to Israel, where some of these funds are used to fund the IDF and illegal settlements.

The ZFA is also the organisation behind the racial discrimination case against journalist Mary Kostakidis over social media posts relating to the genocide.

The federation has publicly rejected United Nations and International Court of Justice (ICJ) findings critical of Israel.

It described a UN Commission of Inquiry finding that Israel committed genocide in Gaza as “a baseless and biased assault on truth and justice”, and rejected the ICJ advisory opinion that Israel has committed a “plausible” genocide in Gaza as “politically driven” and “deeply flawed”.

The ZFA did not respond to requests for comment.

Scope for Herzog arrest
“There is both a legal scope and a moral duty to arrest Isaac Herzog on arrival,” said Chris Sidoti, a Commissioner on the UN Commission of Inquiry into the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem and Israel, in a live broadcast on The West Report.

Despite these concerns, Herzog’s visit has proceeded as planned. When asked about Sidoti’s remarks and the ICJ’s findings on genocide, Foreign Minister Penny Wong said, “President Herzog is being invited to Australia to honour the victims of Bondi and to be with and provide support to Australia’s Jewish community.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/09/herzog-backlash-crushes-albos-social-cohesion-thousands-protest-nationwide/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

The Albanese government in question time on Monday was already targeting Angus Taylor as likely Liberal leader, while the aspirant’s supporters were grappling with the mechanics of organising the challenge.

Sunday’s appalling Newspoll, showing the Liberals on a primary vote of 15% (with the Nationals 3%) and Sussan Ley’s net satisfaction rating at minus 39, has seemed a tipping point for a challenge.

Liberal backbencher Jane Hume, who voted for Taylor last year, put the position starkly. “This is disastrous for the Liberal Party. It’s disastrous for the Coalition.

“Unless something changes, we will be wiped out. I’ve been looking at the numbers, just running a ruler over the pendulum. And I don’t think that at this point there will be a single [Liberal] member of the House of Representatives from Victoria. There won’t be a single member of the House of Representatives from New South Wales. Something has to give.

“We had our lowest primary vote ever at the last election, and it’s now nearly halved. So something has to change and it has to change quickly,” Hume told Sky, also raising the prospect of the election being early.

“I would imagine that the next election will be in about 18 months time. We need to claw back a lot of favour with the electorate just in order to survive.”

“My message to my leaders is that if you have a rabbit in your hat, it’s time to reach for that bunny, because we cannot continue this way.”

As the unfortunate Liberals know, whatever they do, no rabbits are likely to emerge.

Another leader might have stayed in the shadows on a day like this. Ley, however, was out in the media with multiple interviews even though she must know she can’t cut through the fog of this warfare.

Taylor supporters on Monday thought his numbers to dislodge Ley were probably there.

Victorian senator Sarah Henderson, a Taylor backer, said the leadership question needed to be sorted “this week, preferably”.

But Ley plays the tactical battle hard and the path for a spill this week is messy.

An ordinary Liberal party meeting will be held first thing on Tuesday morning. But because this is Senate estimates week, there is a collective apology from all Liberal senators.

So that rules out a spill motion at that meeting.

The Taylor camp would like a special meeting to be held on Friday. But Ley has to facilitate a special meeting, and her opponents fear she might not.

They don’t think she would go to the length Malcolm Turnbull did in 2018 when he demanded his opponents drum up the numbers (in writing) required to petition for a special meeting. But they are concerned Ley could tell them, “there’s been a meeting this week, so wait until parliament returns (at the start of March)”. Ley supporters discount the possibility she’d do this, which would only have the potential to worsen her position.

Another issue preoccupying the insurgents is who would be deputy under Taylor (who post election notoriously had Jacinta Nampijinpa Price as potential running mate). This is not directly within his gift, but it would be important to the “look” of a new team.

Present deputy Ted O’Brien would be expected to run again, and if successful opt to retain his position of shadow treasurer (the deputy gets the call on their portfolio, in normal circumstances).

But a middle aged male deputy backing up a middle aged male leader might not be the best look for a party needing to appeal to female voters.

Potential female candidates include Zoe McKenzie (from Victoria), Melissa McIntosh (New South Wales) and Angie Bell (Queensland). None has stood out.

Victorian Tim Wilson – the Liberal who actually beat a teal – could also be in the deputy field. ………

The deputy job is vital, especially in opposition. The deputy needs to be the “point person” for the leader, watching their back, giving them their troops’ feedback, and often also being something of a “head kicker” against the government.

And of course, sometimes deputies step up to be leaders, for better or worse. As did Ley.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. View from The Hill: Liberals desperate for a path out of purgatory – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-liberals-desperate-for-a-path-out-of-purgatory-275401

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/09/view-from-the-hill-liberals-desperate-for-a-path-out-of-purgatory-275401/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maria O’Sullivan, Associate Professor of Law, Member of Deakin Cyber and the Centre for Law as Protection, Deakin University, Deakin University

The NSW Supreme Court has dismissed a challenge to the extraordinary powers given to police to disrupt protests against Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s visit to Sydney this week.

The decision was handed down late Monday, minutes before a planned protest was scheduled to start through Sydney’s central business district, from Town Hall to Parliament.

Given the urgency of the challenge, Justice Robertson Wright did not hand down reasons.

The decision means protesters attending the demonstration on Monday evening or in the days ahead could be searched by police and face fines of up to $5,500 for not complying with police orders.

What was the case about?

The challenge was brought by the Palestine Action Group in response to the NSW government declaration that Herzog’s visit would qualify as a “major event” under the Major Events Act of 2009.

This declaration is significant because it grants police additional powers to move people on, close specific locations, search people inside a designated area, and issue orders to prevent disruption or risks to public safety.

The declaration zone encompasses the Sydney CBD and stretches out to the eastern suburbs.

It is important to note that Hyde Park was not affected by the order. But the protesters wanted to gather at Town Hall, as Palestine Action Group organiser Josh Lees explained:

We assert our right to protest at Sydney Town Hall because it is the most visible town square that we have in this city for a peaceful assembly and demonstration. We will not be shunted off to some park — out of sight, out of mind — on a dark weeknight. That is not consistent with a genuine right to protest.

The group’s challenge was made on three grounds:

• Herzog’s visit does not constitute an “event” under the relevant legislation
• the designation is unreasonable
• it was made for an “improper purpose” of suppressing a protest.

Determining an ‘event’ under the law

It is important to understand that the designation of the “major event” area for Herzog’s visit was not made by the NSW parliament. Rather, as is usual in these cases, it was made by the tourism minister, Stephen Kamper, under the Major Events Act.

This legislation was aimed at keeping public order during major sporting or music events. Although the act has been used to expand policing powers for large government meetings, such as the 2018 ASEAN–Australia Special Summit, this week’s action is reportedly the first time it has been used solely for the visit of a foreign dignitary.

The act also specifically states that it cannot be used to “declare an industrial or political demonstration or protest to be a major event”. The government’s declaration does not mention protests, however – it declares the major event to be the “Israeli presidential visit”.

The plaintiffs argued the Major Events Act requires the declaration to specify a time, location and who is participating in the “event”.

Although the declaration included a map of the area covered by the declaration and a four-day time period from February 9–12, the plaintiffs argued it lacked precise locations and participants.

This was problematic as it infringed on the public’s fundamental rights of expression and assembly.

Infringing on people’s rights

For various reasons, the plantiffs did not use the implied freedom of political communication as the basis for their challenge.

But they did question the impact on people’s human rights through what is known as the “principle of legality”. Put simply, this principle requires courts to presume that any law passed by the state will not infringe on human rights – unless there are clear words to that effect in the law or it is implied.

The judge, in dismissing the challenge, presumably did not agree with these arguments.

Nor did Justice Wright apparently agree with the plaintiffs’ assertion the declaration was unreasonable and had an improper purpose – to suppress a protest. This would have been difficult to prove, given the minister had cited public order and security concerns in his decision, which could be viewed as a proper purpose.

Broader implications of the ruling

The case raises legal questions about the extent to which a government can restrict protests to a particular area (like Hyde Park) in the name of public order.

In its press release , the government said:

These arrangements are not a ban on protests or marches. People retain the right to express their views lawfully.

On one hand, there is an argument that people should be able to choose where they want to protest to maximise impact.

An argument could also be made that some balance is required between the right to protest and the need to maintain public safety or order. Indeed, during the hearing, Justice Wright suggested the exclusion of Hyde Park from the declaration may have legitimately achieved this balance.

This will be relevant to another challenge due to be heard before the NSW Supreme Court on February 26 to the government’s restrictions on protests following a terror attack. This power was given to police in legislation passed immediately after the Bondi terror attack in December.

Given protests will continue to occur in all states in the face of restrictions like these, it will become increasingly important for the courts to clarify this question about how to find the right balance and ensure freedom of expression is not curtailed.

Maria O’Sullivan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Isaac Herzog visit: protesters lose challenge to sweeping special police powers. What now? – https://theconversation.com/isaac-herzog-visit-protesters-lose-challenge-to-sweeping-special-police-powers-what-now-275436

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/09/isaac-herzog-visit-protesters-lose-challenge-to-sweeping-special-police-powers-what-now-275436/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer E. Cheng, Researcher and Lecturer in Sociology, Western Sydney University

Bathhouses are making a wave in Australia and overseas. And it’s not an isolated trend; it reflects the broader advancement of the global wellness economy, which some reports suggest is outpacing even IT and sport in growth.

The Australian wellness sector, too, is booming. According to a report from the Global Wellness Institute, Australia has one of the world’s fastest-growing wellness economies, growing at an annual rate of 7.5% from 2019 to 2023 – with bathhouses, thermal springs, ice baths and saunas playing a key role.

Bathing together for leisure

Despite consumers’ recent heightened interest in saunas and bathhouses, these activities have a long history.

In Finland, sauna bathing – where water is thrown on hot stones to release steam – is a ritual believed to date back as far as 7000 BC.

One of the first known saunas took the form of a pit dug into the ground. In this “pit sauna”, a pile of stones at the bottom was heated with a campfire.

Sweat houses from the Bronze Age have also been found in Britain and Ireland, as well as ancient Islamic civilisations, and among Indigenous groups in Mexico and North America.

The practice of onsen (hot spring) bathing in Japan also has a history dating back more than 2,000 years.

In Australia, First Nations peoples have bathed in rock pools, waterholes, and billabongs for millennia, viewing fresh and salt water alike as vital cultural, spiritual and agricultural resources.

These ancient bathing practices stand in stark contrast to the modern bathing culture taking over our cities.

The Australian context: indecency and necessity

Sea bathing had become popular in Europe by the 18th century, prior to Australia’s colonisation. In England, Queen Victoria (1819–1901) further popularised the activity by bathing regularly on the Isle of Wight, getting changed in a wooden cart called a “bathing machine” to preserve modesty.

It was also in Britain during Queen Victoria’s lifetime that swimming for sport – as opposed to relaxation, military training or survival – became common practice. Bathing for leisure and hygiene has a much longer history than swimming for sport.

In 1810, New South Wales governor Lachlan Macquarie prohibited the “indecent and improper custom […] of soldiers, sailors and inhabitants of the town” bathing at the government wharf and dock yard in Sydney.

Subsequently, Ralph Darling, NSW governor from 1825 to 1831, had one of the country’s first private bathing houses constructed by Woolloomooloo Bay. Successive governors’ families are thought to have made regular use of the bathing house in the summers.

Melbourne City Baths opened in 1860 and remains operational today. The complex’s original purpose was to discourage people from bathing in the polluted Yarra River, which was believed to have caused an epidemic of typhoid fever. Alongside the “swimming” baths, facilities at the site originally included slipper baths (freestanding tubs) and later included Jewish mikvah (ritual) baths and Turkish baths.

Municipal baths were a key feature of daily life in early Melbourne, as many houses had little provision for private bathing. As of 1943, hot-water systems were installed in just 2% of homes in inner Melbourne, while more than a quarter of residents were still boiling water on stove tops for bathing.

From the late 1940s, however, many homes began installing gas or electric hot-water systems. And by the early 1960s the majority of Australian households had access to running hot water for washing and bathing. This contributed to the decline of public baths.

Historically, access to public baths wasn’t equal for all. Women’s access to the Melbourne City Baths was restricted to just a few hours a day until a major redevelopment in 1904.

The facility was also initially gender-segregated and had “second-class” (working class) patrons relegated to the basement, with first class amenities on the floor above. Mixed-gender bathing was introduced in 1947.

Bathing gets a glow up

Today’s urban bathhouses are sites where water, architecture and shared experience intersect. They typically feature heated pools, cold pools, spas and steam rooms, with purported health benefits for attendees.

The efficacy of using spa-based therapy as a form of treatment is increasingly being studied in various contexts, including for post-operative recovery. Recent research has shown it to be promising, demonstrating potential in reducing inflammation, alleviating pain and promoting motor recovery.

In one study of about 500 sauna users, reduced stress, reduced muscle pain and improved sleep and social connection were among the key therapeutic benefits cited by respondents.

More research is needed to establish the full potential therapeutic uses of spa-based therapies.

From connection to capitalism

The current bathhouse culture taking hold in Australia and New Zealand has emerged in part, as an antidote to pandemic isolation.

Many bespoke spa facilities market themselves as spaces for reconnection – and are proving to be popular (and healthier) alternatives to pubs, bars and nightclubs.

But developing these spaces demands significant investment. Industry experts report construction costs of about A$5–6 million for bathhouses, and $3–4 million for sauna clubs. They are also expensive to operate, manage and clean – and visitors can often expect to pay hefty entry prices.

Something we already have

Despite the desirability of contemporary bathhouses, these spaces are hardly egalitarian. Their focus is turning a profit.

One could instead visit one of the existing 1,300 public aquatic centres in Australia, many of which have spa, sauna and steam room facilities. A casual visit to most of these costs A$10–$20. So why are so people forking out more than twice the amount for a luxury bathhouse?

In 2016, writer and translator Jamie Mackay suggested bringing back public bathhouses could help combat the isolation many city dwellers face by creating spaces for people to come together. He saw bathhouses as truly public places — affordable, flexible and open to all — unlike today’s upscale spa and wellness centres.

Dalva Lamminmäki, a doctoral researcher of sauna culture at the University of Eastern Finland, observes that the resurgence of saunas sometimes neglects a core element of what makes the sauna experience meaningful: that the “sauna is a place of equality”.

Luxury bathouses, meanwhile, could be viewed as yet another case of neoliberal commercialism.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Communal bathing was a public good. Then it got hijacked by wellness culture – https://theconversation.com/communal-bathing-was-a-public-good-then-it-got-hijacked-by-wellness-culture-272264

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/09/communal-bathing-was-a-public-good-then-it-got-hijacked-by-wellness-culture-272264/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steve Hatfield-Dodds, Honorary Professor of Public Policy, Australian National University

In less than ten years, Australia has to cut its emissions 62–75% below 2005 levels. Given reductions in emissions over the past 20 years, that translates to cutting emissions 47–65% below current levels. As of last year, that’s about 440 million tonnes (Mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Under current climate policies, official projections indicate annual emissions will fall 32% by 2035, leaving a sizeable 70–150Mt gap. That’s big. Australia’s cars, trucks and other road vehicles emitted a total of 82Mt last year, for instance.

In a new report, we show Australia will need new policies that provide clearer signals and stronger incentives to stand a chance of reaching its goal.

Policies strong and weak

Economists have long seen a broad-based price on carbon as the most efficient way to drive down emissions.

But Australia’s decades-long climate wars and the repeal of the so-called carbon tax in 2014 has effectively taken this option off the table.

Instead, we have a suite of different policy approaches in three broad groups:

Strong policies

Around 64% of Australia’s net emissions are covered by strong regulation and incentives. In electricity (34% of emissions), clear policy direction coupled with investor momentum is replacing coal and gas generation with renewables and storage. This is already driving lower prices. Emissions are projected to fall 86% by 2035. In industry (30% of emissions), the Safeguard Mechanism covering the 200 largest industrial emitters is projected to cut emissions around 40% by 2035.

Weak or missing incentives

Policies for transport (19% of emissions) and smaller industrial facilities (13%) are falling short. Compared with most advanced nations, the vast majority of transport emissions in Australia are unregulated. The government’s New Vehicle Efficiency Standard gives car buyers more low- or zero-emission options, but lacks incentives to reduce day-to-day emissions. Industrial emissions for smaller facilities are not subject to incentives or constraints.

Opt-in opportunities

The remaining 4% of net emissions come from agriculture, waste and land use. Here, carbon stored in growing vegetation (74Mt) effectively offsets most of the emissions from agriculture (82Mt) and waste (14Mt). Most agricultural operations are export-oriented and have few low-cost ways to cut emissions. The immediate goal is to work towards a future where importers of emissions-intensive food bear the costs of quality credits used to offset these emissions.

Bridging the emissions gap

Here are six new ways to accelerate emissions cuts.

1: Fix electricity

Despite progress, there’s unfinished business in electricity policy. Current policies guide new investment but not how power generators are operated. As a result, coal and gas plant operators don’t have incentives to cut emissions.

The solution, as Grattan Institute experts have argued, is to expand the Safeguard Mechanism to cover electricity by creating a limit for total electricity sector emissions which would reduce over time.

2. Wind back fossil fuel subsidies

Incredibly, governments are still doling out fuel tax credits to make it cheaper for heavy freight to burn diesel. Removing these subsidies would boost government coffers by $4 billion a year and motivate fleet owners to shift to more efficient and lower-emission trucks. Next, policymakers could remove tax incentives encouraging Australians to buy bigger utes and light commercial vehicles.

3. Expand the Safeguard Mechanism

The Safeguard Mechanism requires Australia’s largest emitters to progressively cut emissions, either directly or by buying Australian Carbon Credit Units as offsets to meet their emissions obligations.

A well-regulated carbon credit system reduces the cost of complying with the mechanism by more than 60%. This enables Australia to impose more stringent obligations on industry than other nations, including in sectors such as steel and air transport that currently lack cost-effective options to cut emissions.

Expanding the Safeguard Mechanism to cover smaller industrial facilities would drive uptake of low-cost emission reductions, according to the Productivity Commission. Our research shows lowering the threshold from 100,000 to 25,000 tonnes would drive greater cuts in on-site emissions, boost demand for carbon credits, and increase long-term credit prices.

4: Tackle carbon credit price malaise

Carbon credits act as a visible carbon price. If their value goes up, businesses have an incentive to reduce their direct emissions and rely less on credits. But this logic only stacks up if investors are confident in policy settings – and expect the carbon price to rise over time.

Reaching net zero will require a rising carbon price. We project credit prices will be flat or falling over the next three years, at around $35 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent, before growing to around $70 per tonne by 2035. But we cannot rule out the chance of prices staying low. If this happens, it will suppress business investment in directly reducing emissions.

Governments should reduce this risk by transparently intervening if prices are too low, such as by stepping in to buy credits. As maximum prices are already set through the cost containment measure, this would effectively create a price corridor similar to the Reserve Bank’s target range for inflation.

We find higher prices could lead to an extra 80Mt in cuts by big industrial facilities over ten years, with less reliance on credits.

5. Remove handbrakes on investment

In 2023, the Safeguard Mechanism underwent reform. But these reforms aren’t yet leading to investment in low-emissions facilities and equipment due to weak carbon credit prices, policy uncertainty and a slow start to obligations.

The government could bring forward the next review of the mechanism to this year to align it with the carbon credits review and make policy announcements possible earlier. This would give investors the certainty they need to invest.

6. Expand carbon credits to include nature

Linking carbon credits to promoting nature outcomes could boost the value proposition. Moving from the current carbon focus to “nature positive carbon credits” would reward landholders for using their land to store carbon and restore habitat and put upward pressure on credit prices.

No time to waste

Australia is already living through the consequences of climate change.

To do its part in preventing climate change from worsening, Australian policymakers need to design and introduce more policies to reach its new emissions target.

Reform is never easy. But most Australians know full well that the costs of doing nothing will be far greater than the costs of sensible policy action.

Steve Hatfield-Dodds advises not-for-profits, businesses, and national, state and territory governments on climate and sustainability strategy. He was a member of the Chubb Review of arrangements for Australian Carbon Credit Units in a personal capacity in 2022.

– ref. Australia can’t reach its ambitious climate targets with current policies. Here are 6 things we can try – https://theconversation.com/australia-cant-reach-its-ambitious-climate-targets-with-current-policies-here-are-6-things-we-can-try-275088

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/09/australia-cant-reach-its-ambitious-climate-targets-with-current-policies-here-are-6-things-we-can-try-275088/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrea Carson, Professor of Political Communication, La Trobe University

Recent polling has delivered a spike for the anti-immigration party One Nation, triggering media speculation that Australian politics is on the cusp of a populist realignment.

The latest Newspoll had Labor on 33%, One Nation on 27% and the Coalition on just 18% of primary votes, which constituted both an historic high for One Nation and an all-time low for the Coalition.

Headlines tell us Pauline Hanson’s party is “soaring”, with some analysts asking if she could lead the country or emerge as opposition leader amid a populist uprising.

Yet, the evidence for either of those happening is thin. For a start, it relies on mid-term polling following a landslide victory for Labor in the 2025 election – in other words, is shows one in four Australians would currently vote for One Nation.

A 27% primary vote is certainly a notable boost for Hanson’s party. But framing it as a pathway to One Nation leadership misreads what is fundamentally a Coalition-induced problem. Here are several reasons why One Nation’s support is likely to hit a ceiling.

Historically, One Nation’s limited electoral success has been mostly in Queensland (22.7% first preference in the 1998 state election) and upper houses, where it currently holds four Senate seats out of 76.

Even then, the two One Nation senators contesting the 2025 election were well below quota on primary votes and relied heavily on Coalition preference flows to leapfrog rivals in the WA and NSW count. It was as much about a Coalition preference deal as a One Nation success story.

Australian prime ministers emerge from the lower house (the brief exception was John Gorton), where One Nation has virtually no presence beyond the defection of former National party leader, Barnaby Joyce. Turning a poll spike into a One Nation government would require Hanson (or Joyce) to contest a lower house seat, sustained national support across diverse issues, and a leap from niche anti-immigration messaging to broad policy appeal.

Mid-term polls, especially those not counting undecided voters, often reflect protest sentiment rather than durable electoral momentum. Excluding undecided voters fails to show the degree of voter volatility, especially this far out from a full-term election due in 2028.

Labor’s primary vote has also softened, taking on heavy criticism for its response to the Bondi massacre, and with interest rates rising again and renewed mortgage pain, it too is not immune to a mid-poll protest vote.

Governments (and opposition parties) can suffer mid-term slumps without translating into election losses. Only a year ago, polling pointed to a one-term Labor government and a Coalition victory. Five months later, Labor secured an unprecedented 94-seat win and Liberal leader Peter Dutton lost his own seat.

As former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson, once quipped: “A week can be a long time in politics”, so too with early polling and the final ballot.

One Nation’s recent boost is framed as a rise in right-wing populism tapping into a wave of global anti-immigration sentiment.

But there’s no denying voter frustration with Liberal–National infighting. Sussan Ley’s weakened leadership, with Angus Taylor openly canvassing for her job, has created openings for protest from disaffected Coalition supporters. A quarter of voters at the last election had already moved away from the major parties leading to the rising tide of the independents, particularly the teals, at the expense of former (moderate) liberal heartland seats like Kooyong in Victoria.

Twice in nine months, the Coalition partnership has imploded. It has been patched back together again now, but few see this as a solid arrangement, and most expect an imminent leadership spill in the Liberal Party.

While dismayed National voters could switch to One Nation and follow Joyce, it would put a handful of National seats in play at best. This is especially so given the Queensland version of the party, the Liberal National Party, remains a united single entity against the federal Labor government.

Further, the likelihood of moderate Liberals agreeing to a One Nation–Liberal Coalition replacing the Nationals, is fanciful. Liberal member for Flinders Zoe McKenzie dismissed this notion last week.

Geography and candidate quality further limit Hanson’s prospects. Australia’s population is concentrated on the east coast, where One Nation’s support is uneven, and weak in major cities. Some commentators suggest current polling and high profile recruits such as Cory Bernardi could see upcoming state elections produce lower house One Nation representatives. Even so, state voting patterns are not good predictors of federal election outcomes. Queensland is a good example of that.

One Nation has long struggled to recruit candidates capable of surviving media scrutiny and upholding parliamentary responsibilities. Since the party’s inception until 2023, out of 36 One Nation representatives at state and federal level, only seven have lasted long enough to face re-election. The party’s history of candidate controversies – think of Hanson’s falling-outs with Mark Latham, Fraser Anning and David Oldfield – have been a drag on the party.

Structural factors reinforce these limits. Preferential and compulsory voting systems favour parties with broad public appeal, making it hard for niche-issue parties like One Nation to translate short-term polling attention into seats.

Hanson’s decades-long focus on immigration, cultural threat, and elite betrayal grabs media attention. She is a shrewd political communicator whose polling narratives and immigration rhetoric reinforce one another, driving visibility and public engagement. For example, a Sky News clip of Hanson headlined “Polling higher than the Liberals” currently has 272,000 views. Another segment on immigration, framed around claims that migrants “don’t want to assimilate”, has drawn 180,000 views.

Yet, the party’s message amplification should not be confused with persuasion. These are the same anti-migration themes Hanson has promoted since the 1990s, with limited success in expanding her electoral base. They ignore immigrants’ vital roles in Australia’s health and regional workforces, and in Australian society more generally.

While anti-immigrant sentiment has risen in the wake of the horrific Bondi terror attack, issue salience fluctuates. The most important issues closer to polling day are typically broader, such as cost-of-living pressures, housing affordability, health and aged care. And the next election is still two years away.

For now, the polls tell us more about voter frustration, volatility and media incentives than about who will govern Australia in 2028.

Andrea Carson receives funding with colleagues from the Australian Research Council to study political trust.

Finley Watson receives funding through an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.

– ref. Yes, One Nation’s poll numbers are climbing. But major party status – let alone government – is still a long way off – https://theconversation.com/yes-one-nations-poll-numbers-are-climbing-but-major-party-status-let-alone-government-is-still-a-long-way-off-275086

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/09/yes-one-nations-poll-numbers-are-climbing-but-major-party-status-let-alone-government-is-still-a-long-way-off-275086/