🚨 “DON’T BE STUPID AND SAY I DON’T LOVE MY COUNTRY, JUST BECAUSE I WANT AUSTRALIA TO BELONG TO TRUE AUSTRALIANS!” Pauline Hanson “ignites” the Australian political scene with her crazy $150 billion “Australia First” plan, the most outrageous of the decade! This proposal includes cutting immigration to zero within five years, completely banning foreigners from owning land and real estate, and diverting funds from multicultural programs to building border walls and increasing maritime patrols. Just 72 hours after its announcement, support for the One Nation party skyrocketed to 25%, surpassing the Greens and threatening the ruling coalition’s position in rural states. 👇
Australia’s political landscape has been thrown into turmoil after Pauline Hanson, leader of the One Nation party, unveiled what critics are already calling the most outrageous policy proposal of the decade.
Framed under the banner of a $150 billion “Australia First” plan, Hanson’s announcement has sparked fierce national debate, international attention, and a dramatic surge in support for her party just days after its release.
Whether viewed as a bold defense of sovereignty or a dangerous leap toward isolationism, the proposal has undeniably reignited long-simmering tensions over identity, immigration, and national priorities.
Hanson launched the plan with her trademark confrontational rhetoric, declaring, “Don’t be stupid and say I don’t love my country, just because I want Australia to belong to true Australians.” The statement immediately went viral, polarizing audiences across social media and talkback radio.
Supporters praised her bluntness and willingness to say what they believe mainstream politicians are afraid to articulate, while opponents condemned the language as divisive and inflammatory, arguing it undermines Australia’s multicultural foundations.
At the core of the proposal is a sweeping immigration overhaul. Under Hanson’s plan, Australia would gradually cut net immigration to zero within five years, effectively closing the door to new permanent migrants. Temporary visas would be drastically reduced, refugee intake suspended indefinitely, and existing migration pathways fundamentally restructured.
Hanson argues that such measures are necessary to protect jobs, ease pressure on housing and infrastructure, and preserve what she describes as Australia’s cultural identity.
Equally controversial is the proposal to completely ban foreigners from owning land or real estate in Australia. This policy would apply not only to residential properties but also to agricultural land and commercial assets.
Hanson claims foreign ownership has driven up property prices, locked young Australians out of home ownership, and compromised national security. Critics, however, warn that such a ban could trigger massive capital flight, destabilize property markets, and strain trade relations with key partners.
The plan also calls for redirecting billions of dollars away from multicultural and diversity programs toward border security initiatives. These include the construction of new border barriers, expanded maritime patrols, increased funding for the navy and border force, and enhanced surveillance of Australia’s northern approaches.
Hanson insists that these investments are essential to maintaining sovereignty and preventing illegal arrivals, while detractors argue that Australia already has some of the strictest border controls in the world.
What has stunned political observers most is the speed and scale of the public response. Within just 72 hours of the announcement, polling indicated that support for the One Nation party had surged to 25 percent nationwide.
This sudden rise has pushed One Nation ahead of the Greens and placed it within striking distance of the major parties in several rural and regional states. Analysts suggest that dissatisfaction with the major parties, combined with cost-of-living pressures and housing anxiety, has created fertile ground for Hanson’s message.
The ruling coalition now faces a serious challenge, particularly in electorates where voters feel economically left behind and culturally ignored. Senior government figures have attempted to distance themselves from Hanson’s rhetoric while acknowledging voter frustration.
Some coalition MPs have warned that dismissing One Nation outright could backfire, urging their party to engage more directly with concerns about immigration levels and national cohesion.
Reaction from the opposition has been swift and severe. Labor leaders have labeled the plan reckless and economically illiterate, warning it would isolate Australia from the global economy and damage its reputation as an open, democratic society.
The Greens have gone further, accusing Hanson of exploiting fear and scapegoating migrants for systemic policy failures. Civil society groups and migrant organizations have expressed alarm, saying the proposal risks legitimizing exclusionary attitudes and deepening social divisions.
Business leaders and economists have also raised red flags. Australia’s economy, they argue, has long relied on skilled migration, foreign investment, and international education. Cutting immigration to zero could exacerbate labor shortages, reduce productivity, and slow economic growth.
The proposed $150 billion price tag has drawn particular scrutiny, with critics questioning how such a plan would be funded and whether it represents responsible fiscal management.
Despite the backlash, Hanson has shown no signs of retreating.
In media appearances following the announcement, she doubled down on her message, portraying herself as a patriot under attack by elites and “political correctness.” She has framed the surge in One Nation’s polling as proof that Australians are “finally waking up” and demanding radical change.
As the political shockwaves continue to spread, one thing is clear: Pauline Hanson has once again forced Australia into a national conversation it cannot easily avoid. Whether her “Australia First” plan proves to be a fleeting populist moment or a lasting realignment of the political landscape remains uncertain.
What is undeniable, however, is that the proposal has tapped into deep-seated anxieties and reshaped the debate in ways that will influence Australian politics for months, if not years, to come.
