The Australian political landscape was thrown into chaos after Pauline Hanson delivered one of the most explosive declarations in the nation’s modern history, openly calling for Australia to withdraw from the United Nations “immediately” and sever all ties with what she described as unelected global power structures.

Standing before supporters, Hanson did not soften her language, accusing the UN of being a “giant corruption machine” that, in her words, exists to strip Australia of sovereignty while serving foreign interests, multinational elites, and what she called “dark billionaires.”

Her speech framed the United Nations not as a diplomatic forum, but as an instrument of control, claiming Australia’s financial contributions were being funneled into global bureaucracies with no accountability to Australian voters.

Hanson argued that billions of dollars sent overseas each year could be better spent at home, accusing successive Labor and Liberal governments of prioritizing international approval over national strength and domestic prosperity.

The proposal went far beyond symbolic withdrawal. Hanson outlined a sweeping restructuring of Australia’s entire foreign policy apparatus, beginning with the complete termination of foreign aid programs tied to UN agencies.

She declared that all UN-linked activities on Australian soil would be banned outright, including offices, advisory bodies, and partnerships with domestic institutions, calling them “backdoors for influence.”

In perhaps her most radical move, Hanson proposed dissolving the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, labeling it “old-fashioned, submissive, and disconnected from ordinary Australians.”

In its place, she unveiled a plan for a new “National Sovereignty Guard Force,” a body she claimed would combine border security, trade protection, and intelligence oversight under a single nationalist mandate.

According to Hanson, this new force would answer directly to Parliament, not international treaties or foreign expectations, ensuring that Australian interests always come first.

Financially, the plan was pitched as transformative. Hanson claimed that withdrawing from UN commitments and foreign aid obligations would free up tens of billions of dollars annually.

Those savings, she said, would be redirected into three key areas designed to appeal directly to voters who feel left behind by globalization and urban-centric policy.

First, Hanson pledged to slash the corporate tax rate to 15 percent, arguing this would trigger a wave of domestic investment, job creation, and capital repatriation.

She insisted that multinational companies should be incentivized to operate in Australia under Australian rules, rather than being courted through international frameworks.

Second, Hanson promised the construction of a “Northern Border Wall,” aimed at preventing illegal maritime arrivals and strengthening Australia’s northern defenses.

She framed the proposal not only as an immigration measure, but as a national security project, claiming weak borders invite crime, exploitation, and loss of control.

Third, Hanson pledged direct cash subsidies of 5,000 Australian dollars per year to every rural household, describing it as overdue recognition for communities she says have been ignored for decades.

She argued that rural Australians feed the nation, defend its borders, and sustain its economy, yet receive little in return compared to urban populations.

The political impact was immediate and dramatic. Within 72 hours of the announcement, One Nation reportedly surged to 28 percent support, the highest level in the party’s history.

While independent verification of the figure remains contested, even rival strategists privately acknowledged a sudden and significant shift in voter sentiment.

Labor and Liberal headquarters reportedly went into emergency mode, holding crisis meetings as internal polling showed erosion among working-class and regional voters.

Senior figures from both major parties expressed alarm at what one insider described as “a genuine populist rupture in the system.”

Social media platforms lit up with reactions, with supporters praising Hanson’s bluntness and critics warning of economic isolation and diplomatic fallout.

Chants of “Finally, someone fights back” became a rallying cry at One Nation events, reflecting a broader mood of frustration toward institutions seen as distant and unaccountable.

Supporters argue Hanson is tapping into global populist energy, similar to movements in Europe and the United States that challenge multilateralism and elite consensus.

They claim Australia has paid too high a price for international cooperation, sacrificing sovereignty without seeing tangible benefits for ordinary citizens.

Critics, however, describe the proposal as reckless, warning that withdrawal from the UN could damage trade relationships, security partnerships, and Australia’s global standing.

Former diplomats cautioned that banning UN activity and dismantling the Foreign Office would leave Australia isolated at a time of rising geopolitical tension.

Economists questioned the feasibility of Hanson’s funding claims, noting that Australia’s direct UN contributions are far smaller than the “tens of billions” cited.

They also warned that aggressive tax cuts combined with isolationist policies could destabilize markets rather than strengthen them.

Human rights groups expressed concern that exiting the UN framework could weaken protections and reduce Australia’s influence on global norms.

Hanson dismissed these criticisms outright, accusing experts and institutions of fearmongering to protect their own relevance and funding.

She argued that Australia thrived long before global bureaucracies and would thrive again by reclaiming full control over its laws, borders, and finances.

Within One Nation, senior figures are reportedly stunned by the scale of public response, with internal sources saying the party is now preparing for a serious bid at power.

Strategists are already discussing coalition scenarios, leadership structures, and how to translate protest support into governing credibility.

Whether Hanson can convert momentum into a ruling mandate remains uncertain, but few now doubt that she has shifted the national conversation.

For the first time in decades, withdrawal from the United Nations, once unthinkable, has become a mainstream topic of debate.

As Australia heads toward its next electoral test, the question is no longer whether populism has arrived, but whether Pauline Hanson can turn One Nation into the country’s first truly populist governing force.