One Nation claims to be for individual rights and freedoms, apparently women don't count

By Hannah Ferguson

Have you visited One Nation’s website before and read over the party’s policy platform?

Whether you’re a supporter or opposed to Hanson’s party, it’s likely that you haven’t.

For most voters, allocating your choice on election day is strongly based on vibes. In a recent social media post, my friend Lizzie Hedding compared voting to buying deodarant, noting that people “reach for the brand that feels most like them, without knowing everything about the formulas or ingredients”. While many commentators call this ‘low-information voting’, Hedding also points to brand marketer Bridget Taylor’s clever re-framing of this as ‘low-consideration voting’.

Right now, Pauline Hanson is finding a lot of people stuck with their hands on their hips in the grocery aisle. They might have tried the popular brands before, full of promise and maybe even on sale - but that left them feeling disappointed and even angry after they left the checkout. In this scarcity and frustration, you’re more willing to take a risk on the loud packaging without reading the fine print.

Now is the time for all of us to start reading One Nation’s aloud.

In April of this year, 28% of women in Australia had One Nation as their first vote in the House of Representatives. This data from Redbridge/Accent Research shows this is an increase of 19% since June last year. Women are increasingly supporting One Nation - and it’s women who have the most to lose from choosing them at the ballot box.

One Nation’s website has a policy page labelled ‘Pro-Life’. Within it, the party commits to “seek every opportunity to roll back brutal and extreme abortion law so that unborn babies and pregnant women will have a level of legal and medical protection once again”.

The page lists broad measures the party intends to take, with no reference to current legislation or the specific changes PHON will pursue. This is a policy platform riddled with disinformation, and with One Nation MP and former Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce speaking at an anti-choice rally outside NSW Parliament last week, we know this issue is going to continue to be exploited by party leaders as we head toward the next election.

Australians broadly support access to abortion. Redbridge polling from March of this year for The Australia Institute found that 87% of Australians support access to these services, at least in some circumstances. Notably, this research found support was strongest in rural areas.

Despite what concerted anti-choice information operations are pushing online, 50% of One Nation voters support abortion access. We must remember these figures as Pauline Hanson and Barnaby Joyce descend further into an extremist campaign that undermines our right to privacy, to healthcare access and to bodily autonomy.

We must remember, these aren’t distant proposals. There have been three legislative campaigns attempting to wind back reproductive rights in Australia in recent weeks.

In New South Wales, a bill proposing the banning of sex-selective abortions has gained traction. Of course, the notion that parents are terminating girls in favour of boys is awful. Luckily, there isn’t evidence that this is occurring. The practice also goes against existing NSW Health policy. The intent of this bill is to restrict access.

As Greens MP Dr Amanda Cohn wrote for Women’s Agenda, “there is evidence, though, that criminalising sex-selective abortions harms women. It restricts access to healthcare, subjecting women to racial and cultural profiling and turns doctors into police.”

In South Australia, MP Sarah Game has introduced her third bill in two years attempting to further restrict abortion access after 25 weeks. The bill leans into contention around ‘late-term abortions’ while distorting the reality of how many people access these services, and why.

Current law in South Australia only allows access to termination services after 23 weeks with the approval of two doctors if continuing the pregnancy would pose “significant risk to the physical or mental health” of the pregnant person”. In 2024, abortions after 22 weeks and six days represented just 1% of terminations in SA. Extremists push these narratives to the centre of public discussion, when they represent medical emergencies impacting a minority of circumstances.

And finally, last week Queensland MP for Katter’s Australian Party, Robbie Katter, attempted to circumvent a ban on abortion debate to discuss restricting access to termination medication. According to Children By Choice, Katter’s motion attempted to stop approved providers (nurses and midwives) from prescribing and supplying the medication.

Winding back reproductive rights doesn’t begin with outright bans or re-criminalisation. These far-right campaigns rely on amplifying lies, distorting truth and manufacturing fear. This isn’t just political rhetoric, these are concerted information campaigns with significant financial backing from bad faith actors. They are designed to create chaos that people feel ill-equipped to respond to.

Dr Joanna Howe, a professor of law at Adelaide University, is one of the key figures of the anti-choice movement in Australia. In November of last year, InDaily reported that Howe had spent $95,976 on Meta AdSpend across 40 posts. Author, Helen Karakulak, revealed that Howe was the third biggest spender on social media for this 30-day period, beating BHP.

Howe is the same anti-choice activist behind Sarah Game’s abortion bill, last week’s rally with Barnaby Joyce, and the individual who shared an image she claimed was aborted twins ‘Emma and Ruth’ that the Guardian’s expert analysis found was a video of newborn sugar gliders. She has also hosted Pauline Hanson on her podcast numerous times.

In 2024, I had an abortion. I shared my story to ensure other women felt they were not alone - and to advocate for the ongoing protection of this right as Sarah Game’s first bill was introduced in South Australia, copying the Trump playbook in the US as their election unfolded.

In the 18 months since I came forward, Joanna Howe has launched extensive attacks against me. She has relentlessly harassed me in videos, and has even launched a petition against me that her site claims has amassed more than 20,000 signatures. I stopped talking about my experience and refused to respond to her vitriol because I did not want to give her the attention and platform she craves. But, I have observed her attachment to One Nation as they rise in the polls - and I feel compelled to speak out again.

These campaigns are about money and power, and how women’s bodies can be legislated to get closer to it.

Let me be clear, Barnaby Joyce and Pauline Hanson do not care about the rights of the unborn. If your party fights harder for the rights of a foetus than the health, safety and welfare of Australian children by focusing on supporting social and essential services that would genuinely benefit the welfare and safety of existing kids - it is obvious that you are more interested in legislating control over women than for the health and success of the next generation.

The front page of One Nation’s website asserts that we need to ‘stand up for the individual rights and fundamental freedoms of all Australians against global agendas to restrict or abolish those rights and freedoms’. By copying the Trump playbook on reproductive rights, not only are Hanson and Joyce importing a foreign agenda - they’re also limiting the freedoms and rights of women in this country to make our own medical decisions and to retain our right to privacy.

If you’re thinking about voting for One Nation, make sure to look at the fine print of the product they’re trying to sell you. The packaging may appear slightly different, but you’ll find the ingredient list is all the same - and even far worse.

---

About the Author:

Hannah Ferguson is the founder and CEO of Cheek Media, and the co-host of news and pop culture podcast, Big Small Talk. She is also a Forbes 30 under 30 Honouree and the bestselling author of two books. Hannah intends to run as an independent candidate at the next federal election.