One Nation’s tactics risk hollowing out political debate

A former Queensland premier has urged the Coalition and One Nation to put their energy into dismantling Labor. That strategic guidance, reported in the media, is fuel for a broader story: the growing willingness of some political actors to subordinate policy argument to scorched-earth campaigning. Recent events illustrate the point. Shadow Veterans’ Affairs Minister Michael McCormack has publicly criticised One Nation leader Pauline Hanson for promoting what he described as an "ugly divisiveness" — urging her to remove a cartoon targeting Liberal MP Andrew Hastie. Separately, media reporting shows Hanson has attacked the Prime Minister’s late mother in relation to public housing. Meanwhile, coverage of One Nation suggests the party is attempting to parry controversy by leaning on “lived experience” as a political defence. Taken together, these are not isolated incidents. They are evidence of a two-part dynamic that should worry voters. First, there is an explicit strategic alignment between mainstream opposition forces and a populist party that is prepared to use intensely personal and provocative messaging. Second, there is a creeping normalisation — across media and politics — of tactics that prize disruption and grievance over constructive debate. Why this matters to ordinary Australians is straightforward. Healthy politics depends on competition over ideas, plans and priorities. When the objective becomes merely to weaken the government rather than to present a credible alternative, citizens lose. Policy discussion is displaced by spectacle. The public is left to sort meaning from provocation, and the institutions that mediate politics — parties, media and civic organisations — are tested by the strain. There are pragmatic risks too. Parties that focus on dismantling an opponent risk offering voters only negative appeals: dismantle Labour, yes, but what then? Aligning closely with actors who traffic in personal attacks and polarising symbolism can also alienate centrist voters and civic-spirited Australians who want problem-solving. It can entrench a cycle in which “owning” the other side matters more than delivering services, reform or stewardship. That is not to deny politics’ rough edges. Opposition parties must be vigorous; they must hold governments to account. But that duty is qualitatively different from celebrating division or targeting private figures for public humiliation. When senior figures in the system — former premiers, shadow ministers and party leaders — direct resources and rhetoric toward dismantling an opponent, they should be held to the same standard of public responsibility they expect of governments. There is another element: voters. The electorate will ultimately adjudicate whether negative, personal, or tokenistic politics is effective. But for that choice to be meaningful, democratic debate must remain anchored in facts and consequence, not just theatricality. Media organisations carry a responsibility here too: reporting controversy is necessary, but normalising gratuitous personal attacks as a legitimate political strategy is not. If the Coalition and One Nation are serious about political renewal, the task is twofold: present a coherent, policy-led alternative to Labor; and police the rhetoric and methods their campaigns deploy. Parties that conflate opposition with demolition risk hollowing out the very public trust on which their own long-term relevance depends. Australia is too important — and the public interest too fragile — for politics to descend into strategy divorced from substance.