The soul of the Liberal party is now corroded by hate
Within the Liberal Party of Australia, a reckoning is quietly unfolding — one that asks whether a political institution can chase the margins without losing its centre. In the weeks following the 2026 budget reply, several Liberal MPs have begun to voice what they dare not say publicly: that Pauline Hanson's One Nation, long a fringe force, now sets the terms of their party's agenda. The immigration policies announced by opposition leader Angus Taylor — tying migrant intake to housing construction and labelling certain nations 'bad' — have become a mirror in which some Liberals no longer recognise themselves.
- A quiet panic is driving Liberal strategy: One Nation is bleeding the Coalition's vote, and the party's response has been to adopt the very language and policies it once kept at arm's length.
- Anonymous Liberal MPs are sounding the alarm internally, warning that the party's soul is being 'corroded by hate' and that its signature immigration policy amounts to coded hostility toward specific communities.
- Angus Taylor insists the policy is pragmatic — a hard ceiling on migration tied to housing completions — but critics within his own ranks call it a white flag of surrender, not a principled platform.
- Pauline Hanson, watching from the sidelines, has claimed credit for multiple Coalition announcements and expressed open satisfaction that Australia's political centre is now moving toward her.
- The Coalition risks a compounding loss: alienating multicultural and moderate voters it needs to rebuild, while still failing to out-compete One Nation among the voters it is trying to reclaim.
Inside the Liberal Party, a fear is spreading that few will name aloud. Several MPs, speaking anonymously, believe their party has ceded its agenda to Pauline Hanson's One Nation — a minor rightwing force that has long haunted the edges of Australian politics. The trigger is immigration, and the man at the centre is Angus Taylor.
In his budget reply speech, Taylor unveiled a policy tying Australia's temporary migration intake directly to annual housing completions — a hard numerical ceiling on overseas arrivals framed in the language of economic pragmatism. But to some of his own colleagues, it read as something more troubling: a capitulation to One Nation's long-standing demands, repackaged as fiscal responsibility. More alarming still was the rhetoric around it. Taylor had begun labelling certain countries 'bad,' and the escalating language struck several Liberal MPs as deliberate dog whistling — coded hostility toward immigrants, driven not by principle but by electoral panic.
'One Nation now controls the Liberal agenda,' one anonymous MP told The Guardian. 'To have as your signature policy response to the budget attacking migrants should be seen as the white flag of surrender.' Another Liberal conceded the party could never out-compete One Nation on migration alone. Former MP Jenny Ware urged caution, warning Taylor against the trap of chasing Hanson — not because immigration shouldn't be discussed, but because the rhetoric risked targeting specific communities and dragging the party into One Nation's register of discourse.
Hanson herself appeared delighted. She told Nine News she sets Australia's political agenda because she listens to ordinary people, and if the Liberals wished to adopt her policies, 'good luck to you, mate.' She had already claimed credit for an earlier Taylor announcement blocking permanent residents from a first home buyer scheme. Labor's home affairs minister Tony Burke delivered the sharpest line of all: 'The one permanent resident that Angus Taylor seems happy with is Pauline Hanson, who's a permanent resident in his head.'
Taylor denied the shift was about stemming One Nation's rise and dismissed concerns about multicultural voters. But within his own party, the damage was already visible — not just in policy, but in tone, in target, in worldview. Some Liberals could see it clearly. The question was whether seeing it was enough.
Inside the Liberal Party, a quiet alarm is spreading. Several MPs, speaking only under cover of anonymity, have begun to voice a fear that feels almost unsayable: their party is no longer driving its own agenda. Instead, they believe, Pauline Hanson's One Nation—a minor rightwing party that has long occupied the fringes of Australian politics—has seized control of the Coalition's direction, pulling it toward positions the Liberals once would have resisted.
The catalyst is immigration. During his budget reply speech on Thursday night, Angus Taylor, the Coalition's economic voice, announced a signature policy: Australia's temporary migration intake would be directly tied to the number of new homes built each year. Housing completion figures would become a hard ceiling on overseas arrivals. It was a concrete proposal, wrapped in the language of pragmatism. But to several of his own MPs, it read as something else entirely—a capitulation to One Nation's long-standing demands, dressed up as economic policy.
What troubled them more was the rhetoric surrounding it. Taylor had begun labeling certain countries as "bad," escalating his language on migration in ways that felt deliberate, calculated to appeal to voters drifting toward Hanson's party. One anonymous Liberal MP put it bluntly to The Guardian: the party's soul was being "corroded by hate." The language on migration, this MP argued, amounted to dog whistling—coded speech designed to signal disapproval of immigrants without saying so directly. And it was being fueled, they believed, by panic. One Nation was eating into the Coalition's vote share, and the Liberals were chasing it.
"One Nation now controls the Liberal agenda," the MP said. "To have as your signature policy response to the budget attacking migrants should be seen as the white flag of surrender to One Nation onslaught." Another Liberal acknowledged the party would never out-compete One Nation on migration alone, and urged a shift in focus. Even Jenny Ware, a former Liberal MP who lost her seat in 2022, warned Taylor against the trap of chasing Hanson. Yes, she said, the party should discuss curbing immigration and tying migration to infrastructure. But there was danger in the rhetoric itself—danger that the Liberals would start targeting specific groups, that they would descend to One Nation's level of discourse.
Ware framed migration as a two-way street: immigrants adopting Australian values, and government providing adequate services in return. The current rhetoric, she suggested, was breaking that contract. She also warned that One Nation's threat extended beyond the Liberals; Labor would feel it too.
Hanson herself seemed delighted by the turn of events. She told Nine News that she set Australia's political agenda because she listened to ordinary people, and if the Liberals wanted to adopt her policies, "good luck to you, mate." She had already claimed credit for an earlier Taylor announcement—blocking permanent residents from accessing a first home buyer scheme. Last month, Taylor had unveiled that policy; Hanson said it was hers.
One other Liberal MP acknowledged backing both the economic and immigration policies, and said they were not concerned about appearing to copy One Nation. But they conceded there was a risk: the public could "misinterpret the policy and see it as dog-whistling." Immigration advocacy groups quickly condemned the budget reply. Labor's home affairs minister, Tony Burke, delivered a cutting line: "The one permanent resident that Angus Taylor seems happy with is Pauline Hanson, who's a permanent resident in his head."
Taylor denied the announcements were aimed at stemming One Nation's rise, and dismissed concerns about alienating multicultural voters. "Citizenship is a privilege," he told the ABC's 7.30 program. But inside his own party, the damage was already visible. The Liberals were not just adopting One Nation's policies; they were adopting its tone, its targets, its worldview. And some of them knew it.
Notable Quotes
One Nation now controls the Liberal agenda. To have as your signature policy response to the budget attacking migrants should be seen as the white flag of surrender to One Nation onslaught.— Anonymous Liberal MP
The danger is in their rush to beat One Nation and to defeat One Nation that they are going to fall into the trap of the One Nation rhetoric and of thinking down to One Nation's level.— Jenny Ware, former Liberal MP
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would Liberal MPs speak anonymously about this? What are they afraid of?
Speaking openly would mark them as disloyal to their own leadership. In a party already fractured over direction, being quoted as critical of Taylor or the immigration stance could end careers, or at least make them pariahs in caucus.
But they're saying the party's soul is corroded. That's not a small complaint.
No, it's not. What they're really saying is that they've crossed a line they didn't think they would cross. They came into politics believing in something, and now they're watching their party adopt rhetoric and policies they associate with the far right. The anonymity lets them name that contradiction without paying the price.
Is this about immigration policy itself, or about how it's being sold?
Both, but mostly the latter. Some of these MPs probably agree that immigration levels need discussion, that housing and infrastructure matter. What horrifies them is the language—the dog whistling, the targeting of certain countries as "bad." It feels like the party is using immigration as a vehicle for something darker.
And Hanson is just... winning?
She's not just winning. She's being credited for winning. The Liberals are adopting her positions and her framing, and she's publicly taking credit. From her perspective, she's already won—she's reshaped what the major party thinks is acceptable to say.
What happens if this continues?
The Liberals risk losing the moderate, multicultural voters who have been their base. They also risk becoming indistinguishable from One Nation on the issues that matter most to those voters. At that point, why vote Liberal instead of the real thing?