One Nation’s Resurgence through the Lenses of the Nepean By-election

By Editorial Board

The recently concluded Nepean by-election in Victoria on May 2, 2026, has sounded a profound alarm for mainstream Australian politics. Although Liberal candidate Anthony Marsh retained the seat, the victory was overshadowed by a nearly 10% plunge in the Liberal primary vote. In contrast, One Nation surged to a staggering 24.7% support in the electorate.

This is no longer a “polling illusion” conjured by specific media outlets; it is a stark political reality. In the absence of a Labor candidate, a significant portion of voters disillusioned with mainstream parties pivoted toward the far-right. Notably, One Nation gained substantial ground in communities struggling with economic vulnerability and the rising cost of living, effectively turning “multiculturalism” and “migrant contribution” into scapegoats for financial anxiety. This reveals a troubling correlation—confirmed by recent Australian National University (ANU) research—between the resurgence of One Nation and the erosion of migrant well-being.

A Concerning Trend

The by-election results expose the opportunistic nature of the major parties when confronting extremism. During the campaign, the Liberal Party’s strategy wavered between “wooing centrist voters” and “harvesting right-wing anger.” Adopting One Nation-style rhetoric to prevent vote leakage is a self-destructive move; when a major party’s lead over extremists narrows, they have already compromised their moral baseline for social cohesion.

Looking back at previous Sky News coverage regarding One Nation’s performance in the South Australian state election, one can see the gap between media manipulation and actual crisis. At that time, reports exaggerated One Nation’s “significant win” in primary votes to imply impending political dominance. Those figures were largely an illusion built on biased polling of right-wing audiences, ignoring the fact that most voters still ranked extremists last under Australia’s preferential voting system. However, the Nepean outcome proves that while media reports may be exaggerated, the danger is becoming real. Due to the weakness of mainstream parties and fundamental flaws in our multicultural framework, what was once a fringe threat is now gnawing at the foundations of Australian society.

Furthermore, May 2026 ANU polling shows that public trust in government is at an all-time low. When the government fails to address basic survival issues—such as skyrocketing rents and job instability—major party silence is interpreted as tacit endorsement of One Nation’s fallacies. Both major parties, paralyzed by electoral calculation, have failed to use hard data to defend migrants, allowing the false narrative that “migrants drive up prices” to fester.

The Evolution of a Persistent Threat

(Simplified Section) One Nation’s power has always stemmed from its ability to exploit social fractures. Since its inception under Pauline Hanson in the late 1990s, the party has pivoted its targets—from Asian immigrants and Indigenous welfare to Islam and climate science—depending on the prevailing fears of the day. While internal divisions and scandals have often sidelined the party, its core strength lies in its capacity to simplify complex socio-economic grievances (like housing shortages and wage stagnation) into xenophobic slogans. It consistently harvests political capital by masquerading as the “protector of traditional values” while inciting prejudice that leads to increased discrimination against minority groups.

Geopolitical Fault Lines

(Simplified Section) One Nation’s influence is traditionally rooted in regional Queensland and South Australia, where geographic isolation often creates a “cognitive vacuum.” In areas with limited multicultural interaction, migrants are often viewed as abstract threats rather than fellow citizens. Victoria, a long-standing Labor stronghold with deep multicultural roots, has historically acted as a barrier to this rhetoric. In Melbourne, migrants are neighbors and colleagues, making it harder for demonizing language to take hold.

However, we must not be complacent. The Nepean result is a “reality check” reminding us that this barrier is not impenetrable. When economic pressure eclipses community ties, and when mainstream parties begin to echo exclusionary sentiments, extremism acts as a corrosive agent, slowly eating away at the inclusive foundations of even the most progressive states.

The Structural Failure of Multicultural Mechanisms

Sociologist Professor Andrew Jakubowicz argues that the crisis of Australian multiculturalism stems from it being treated as a “management tool” rather than a true rebalancing of power. Current policies rely too heavily on the concept of “social cohesion,” which often demands that minorities “integrate” and stay quiet without challenging deep-seated structural racism. When the economy tightens, this superficial inclusion collapses.

Our current system for handling racial complaints is overly reliant on individual evidence rather than addressing institutional racism. For over thirty years, policy reviews have been purely formal, lacking the investigative depth of a Royal Commission. Current social cohesion indicators often measure “stability” from a mainstream perspective rather than “safety” from a minority perspective. This regulatory vacuum allows hidden discrimination to flourish in the cracks of our institutions.

The Responsibility of Mainstream Parties

Mainstream parties must stop hiding behind “public opinion” and show true leadership. The Liberals and Labor must reshape the narrative around migration, using data to explain its contribution to national growth rather than blaming migrants for infrastructure or housing failures.

Politically, they must abandon the “dark art” of preference deals with extremist parties. They must move beyond “festival multiculturalism”—appearing at Lunar New Year ribbons-cuttings—and invest in genuine cross-cultural education and integration programs that bridge the gap between regional conservative voters and new migrant communities.

The Voter’s Choice

With the Victorian election and the upcoming Farrar by-election approaching, Australia is at a crossroads. Facing One Nation’s aggression in Nepean and its potential surge in regional battlefields like Farrar, voters from migrant backgrounds must recognize the opportunistic calculations of the major parties.

Our votes should not merely be a choice between two “imperfect” giants; they must be a tool for accountability. We must demand that parties stop playing politics with migrant lives and start showing genuine moral courage. Only by refusing to be treated as political pawns can we protect the dignity of this land and ensure that Australia’s future is not buried in outdated hatred.