🔥 Pauline Hanson has just launched her “$90 Billion Plan to Save Australia,” with a bold proposal: withdrawing from the United Nations, the WHO, and the WEF; abolishing the Department of Climate Change; and drastically cutting the NDIS fund to focus support on those who truly need it. In just 24 hours, support for the One Nation party surged to 19%, its highest ever record.
The plan commits to saving $90 billion annually to directly return to Australians, investing in coal energy to reduce electricity bills by 30%, and building more dams and railways instead of “spending money on globalization.” Immediately after the announcement, Pauline Hanson’s powerful nine-word message exploded and spread across the nation.
Australia’s political landscape was jolted overnight after One Nation leader Pauline Hanson unveiled what she described as a sweeping and uncompromising blueprint to “reset the nation’s priorities.” Branded the “$90 Billion Plan to Save Australia,” the proposal landed with dramatic force, igniting fierce debate across parliament, talkback radio, and social media, while simultaneously delivering a surge in support for Hanson’s party that few observers anticipated.
At the core of the plan is a radical restructuring of Australia’s relationship with global institutions. Hanson called for immediate withdrawal from the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and the World Economic Forum, arguing that these bodies exert undue influence over domestic policy and undermine national sovereignty. According to Hanson, leaving these organizations would allow Australia to “take back control of its laws, borders, and economic decisions,” freeing billions of dollars currently spent on international commitments.
Equally controversial is the proposal to abolish the Department of Climate Change. Hanson framed the move as a rejection of what she termed “ideological policymaking,” insisting that environmental targets have driven up energy costs and placed unnecessary pressure on households and industry. Instead, the plan prioritizes heavy investment in coal and other traditional energy sources, with the stated goal of cutting electricity bills by up to 30 percent. Supporters argue this would bring immediate relief to families and small businesses struggling with rising costs, while critics warn it would isolate Australia economically and environmentally.
Another major pillar of the plan involves a drastic overhaul of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Hanson emphasized that the NDIS, while vital, has become financially unsustainable in its current form. Her proposal would significantly reduce overall funding while tightening eligibility criteria, redirecting support to what she described as “those who truly need it.” The suggestion sparked immediate backlash from disability advocates, who fear vulnerable Australians could be left without essential services. Hanson, however, insisted that the reform is about accountability and fairness, not abandonment.
The financial promise at the heart of the proposal is striking. Hanson claims the measures would save approximately $90 billion every year, money she says would be returned directly to Australians through tax relief, lower utility costs, and major infrastructure projects. The plan outlines a renewed focus on building dams, railways, and regional infrastructure, arguing that these investments would boost productivity, secure water supplies, and create long-term jobs, particularly outside major cities.
Within 24 hours of the announcement, polling indicated One Nation support had surged to 19 percent nationally, the highest level in the party’s history. Political analysts were quick to note that the spike reflects deep frustration among voters grappling with cost-of-living pressures, housing shortages, and a sense that mainstream parties have failed to deliver tangible improvements. Whether the surge is sustainable remains uncertain, but the immediate reaction has undeniably reshaped the conversation.
The most talked-about moment came at the conclusion of Hanson’s press conference, when she delivered a blunt nine-word message that rapidly spread across the country. Supporters described it as defiant and energizing, while opponents called it inflammatory. Regardless of interpretation, the phrase became a rallying cry, trending online and dominating headlines, reinforcing Hanson’s reputation for direct, polarizing communication.
Reaction from the major parties was swift and sharp. Government ministers accused Hanson of promoting reckless isolationism and dismantling essential services, warning that withdrawing from international institutions could damage trade relationships and Australia’s global standing. Opposition figures questioned the feasibility of the projected savings, demanding independent verification of the figures and highlighting potential economic risks.
Economists remain divided. Some argue that reduced international engagement and increased domestic energy production could indeed lower certain costs in the short term. Others caution that the long-term consequences—particularly trade retaliation, reduced foreign investment, and environmental penalties—could outweigh any immediate financial gains. The proposed NDIS cuts, in particular, have been flagged as socially and politically risky.
For Hanson and One Nation, however, the plan appears to have achieved its immediate goal: commanding attention and reframing the national debate around sovereignty, spending, and priorities. By positioning herself as the voice of Australians who feel overlooked or burdened by global agendas, Hanson has once again demonstrated her ability to tap into populist sentiment at moments of economic and social strain.
As the dust settles, one thing is clear: the “$90 Billion Plan to Save Australia” has forced voters, commentators, and lawmakers alike to confront fundamental questions about the country’s future direction. Whether the proposal becomes a cornerstone of a broader political shift or fades under scrutiny will depend on the months ahead. For now, Pauline Hanson has ensured that her vision—controversial, confrontational, and unapologetically nationalistic—sits squarely at the center of Australia’s political conversation.
