1 MINUTE AGO 🚨 Pauline Hanson has just unveiled a “$90 Billion Plan to Save Australia,” in which she proposes withdrawing from the UN, WHO, and WEF, abolishing the Department of Climate Change, and heavily cutting NDIS funding to support only those who truly need it.

Within just 24 hours, One Nation’s support surged to 19% the highest level in the party’s history.

The plan promises to save $90 billion each year to return money to Australians, invest in coal power to slash electricity prices by 30%, and build more dams and railways instead of “paying globalists.” Immediately after the announcement, Pauline Hanson’s nine-word message spread rapidly across the entire country. 👇👇

Pauline Hanson ignited national debate after revealing what she described as a bold economic rescue strategy for Australia. The announcement, shared with dramatic urgency, immediately triggered intense discussion across political circles, social media platforms, and talkback radio nationwide.

The plan, branded as a “$90 Billion Plan to Save Australia,” outlines sweeping structural changes to government priorities. Hanson argues that decades of international commitments and bureaucratic expansion have drained public funds without delivering meaningful benefits to everyday Australians.

Central to the proposal is withdrawing Australia from global institutions such as the United Nations, World Health Organization, and World Economic Forum. Hanson claims these bodies impose ideological agendas that undermine national sovereignty while costing taxpayers billions annually.

Another major pillar involves abolishing the Department of Climate Change. Hanson contends that climate-focused policies have driven up energy costs, damaged industry, and placed unnecessary pressure on households already struggling with inflation and rising living expenses.

Energy policy features prominently in the plan. One Nation proposes reinvesting heavily in coal-fired power generation, promising electricity price reductions of up to thirty percent. Supporters argue this would provide immediate relief to families and small businesses.

Infrastructure development is also emphasized. Instead of funding international commitments, Hanson’s proposal prioritizes building dams, railways, and regional projects designed to improve water security, transport efficiency, and long-term economic resilience across Australia.

Perhaps the most controversial element is the proposed restructuring of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Hanson argues that excessive spending and mismanagement have diverted resources away from Australians with genuine, critical needs.

Under the plan, NDIS funding would be tightened to focus exclusively on those deemed most vulnerable. Supporters say this approach ensures sustainability, while critics warn it risks excluding people who rely on essential services.

Within hours of the announcement, social media platforms were flooded with reactions. Supporters praised Hanson’s direct language and willingness to challenge entrenched systems, while opponents accused her of oversimplifying complex national and global issues.

According to reports circulated by One Nation affiliates, party support surged to nineteen percent within twenty-four hours. If accurate, this figure would represent the highest level of public backing in the party’s history.

Political analysts cautioned that such numbers should be viewed carefully, yet acknowledged the announcement clearly struck a chord with voters feeling disconnected from major parties and frustrated by rising costs and government spending.

The promise to save ninety billion dollars annually became a focal talking point. Hanson claims the recovered funds would be redirected back to Australians through tax relief, infrastructure investment, and reduced utility expenses.

Critics questioned the feasibility of such savings, pointing to potential diplomatic consequences and transitional costs. Supporters countered that decisive action is necessary to reverse what they see as decades of fiscal mismanagement.

Immediately after the policy reveal, a nine-word message attributed to Hanson spread rapidly online. The brief statement was shared widely, resonating with voters who value blunt messaging over lengthy political explanations.

While the exact wording varied across platforms, the message was widely interpreted as a call to prioritize Australians first, reject global influence, and reclaim control over national resources and decision-making.

The speed at which the message spread highlighted growing dissatisfaction with traditional political communication. Many supporters said the simplicity reflected their own frustration with complex policies that feel distant from daily realities.

Major parties responded cautiously, avoiding direct engagement while questioning the practicality of withdrawing from international institutions. Some warned such moves could isolate Australia economically and diplomatically in an interconnected world.

Grassroots supporters, however, framed the plan as a long-overdue reset. They argue Australia possesses abundant natural resources and should leverage them independently rather than conforming to international pressures.

Regional communities appeared particularly receptive. Energy costs, water shortages, and infrastructure neglect have long been pressing concerns outside major cities, making the proposal’s focus on dams and rail resonate strongly.

Commentators noted that Hanson’s approach taps into broader global trends, where voters increasingly favor nationalist platforms promising sovereignty, economic protection, and resistance to multinational influence.

Whether the plan is ultimately adopted remains uncertain, but its immediate impact on political discourse is undeniable. It forced uncomfortable conversations about spending priorities, global alliances, and who government policies truly serve.

For supporters, the announcement represented clarity and courage. For critics, it raised alarms about potential consequences. Regardless, it ensured Pauline Hanson and One Nation returned firmly to the national spotlight.

As debate continues, one thing is clear: the proposal has energized supporters, unsettled opponents, and reminded Australia that bold, polarizing ideas still have the power to reshape political momentum overnight.