Talk:One Nation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the One Nation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.
Start a new topic

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives : 1 Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is written in Australian English , which has its own spelling conventions (centre, colour, realise, program, travelled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject icon Australia : Politics High‐importance icon icon

WikiProject icon One Nation is within the scope of WikiProject Australia , which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia

High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Taskforce icon This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as High-importance).

Note icon Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.

Note icon The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

WikiProject icon Politics : Political parties Mid‐importance

WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics

Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Taskforce icon This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

WikiProject icon Conservatism Mid‐importance icon

WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism

Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Note icon This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

WikiProject icon Women

WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

On 23 March 2026, it was proposed that this article be moved from Pauline Hanson's One Nation to One Nation. The result of the discussion was moved.

Splitting off State Histories

[edit ]

Before I make a big change, I'd like to raise it here. The party's history section has become significantly bloated and unfocused in its writing since 2016, making it unencylopedic and difficult to read.

As a part of the tidy-up, I'd suggest that the PHON state branch histories and electoral results be moved to their own separate pages. The main article would be primarily focused on the Federal government branch, similar to the pages for the Australian Greens and National Party of Australia (e.g. New South Wales National Party).

What's everyones thoughts about this change? Catiline52 (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

There should be separate state branch pages with their own electoral results and leave the federal One Nation page for federal results and history. I agree Lowbudgetlaptop (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

That would be great to move state and territory branches to seperate pages. In order for each branch to receive an article, you will first need to determine whether they are notable and see if enough sources exist to support the information you want to provide.

Another reason it would be so good to move local party branches to their own articles is because they may be somewhat independent of the federal party. Something has always felt like it is missing considering that other Australian political parties had their state and territory branches in an article but One Nation does not. Given their recent rise in the opinion polls, it does seem wise to create these articles. Qwerty123M (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Why is one nation not far right?

[edit ]

The ideology of hansonism is listed as far right and pro white Australia policy so why does one nation not say that too? i suggest we add these changes to make it more accurate Pixelafghahdga (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Pixelafghahdga, far-right is in the infobox but we also have multiple citations that call the party right-wing. Helper201 (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

That is an absolute joke of a claim you’ve just made. One Nation are considered right wing or right wing populist in terms of global standards. ~2026-18016-57 (talk) 08:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

We're not basing our decision on international or domestic standards, that is original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Instead, we must use the wording that reliable sources contain, even if the sources are not fully up to date. Remember that on Wikipedia you must not let your feelings cloud your judgement and instead base your decisions on policies, guidelines and essays. Qwerty123M (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

One Nation has consistently been against Far-Right political parties. It is not right-wing at all. But then again, this is Leftiepedia, and the editors are all lefties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-31748-20 (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2026

[edit ]

This edit request to Pauline Hanson's One Nation has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "is a far-right extremist group" to "is a right-wing populist political party" Change the ideologies "white-supremacy, white-nationalism, white Australia, etc" back to "Hansonism, Conservatism, Right-wing populism" which was one of the previous edits made on this page. Could I also request that vandalism be taken more seriously and that protected pages are actually protected and not allow members of the public to make edits after a certain time. Thanks ~2026-18016-57 (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

look at the edit history over the past few days. it seems there has been an edit war/vandalism going on.

there are some unsubstantiated or otherwise emotional claims like "far-right extremist" or "far-right claims" and with ideologies like neo-nazism, white supremacy etc in the infobox. i have not been able to find information within the article to back these claims up, so i've reverted these changes until they can be properly attributed to a reliable source. someone's probably going to undo my edits though...

Psnq0009 (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

There is an edit-war going on because the media arm of the Labor and Liberal parties have encouraged people to conduct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-31748-20 (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Can you provide a reliable source for that claim? HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Requested move 23 March 2026

[edit ]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is consensus that One Nation is both the common name and the primary topic. There is concern that this is Australia-centric, but COMMONNAME privileges use in English-language sources and data provided have proven primacy. (closed by non-admin page mover) Iseult ^Δxtalk to me 06:25, 31 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

– Per WP:COMMONNAME. I'm struggling to find any WP:RS that still refer to the party as 'Pauline Hanson's One Nation' (PHON).

The AEC does still list the party as PHON here, and the One Nation website still uses PHON (likely for legal reasons to align with the AEC registration), but the party is increasingly being referred to as 'One Nation' instead of PHON in the majority of news and political publications.

The party announced in October last year the name would be changed here.

Google News search doesn't show any sources referring to the party as PHON in any of the pages I browsed.

Suggest replacing the disambig page at One Nation as I believe this is the WP:PTOPIC. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Shrubshire, HiLo48, ITBF, TarnishedPath, and Maranello10: (pinging editors from previous discussion). SnowyRiver28 (talk) 09:34, 23 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Comment: A pageview analysis and a Wikinav analysis from the current dab page for anyone interested. TarnishedPath ^talk 10:10, 23 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Ps, another pageview analysis from 1 July 2015 to present. TarnishedPath ^talk 23:35, 23 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Oppose: In Britain one-nation conservatism would probably be considered the primary topic for the phrase, and other countries might have their own primary topics for it, with this being the one for Australia. I would be inclined towards One Nation (Australian political party); One Nation (Israel) might be better titled One Nation (Israeli political party). Ham II (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
The WikiNav link provided by @TarnishedPath above suggests provides the following destinations for readers hitting the disambig page:
- 80.0% to PHON (the subject of this move request)
- 3.3% to One Nation (Israel)
- 3.0% to One Nation (infrastructure)
- 2.6% to Henry Boulton (redirected from OneNation)
- 2.6% to American Crossroads (redirected from One Nation (United States)
- 2.2% to One New Zealand Party
- 2.1% to One-nation conservatism
- ...other articles below 2% clickthrough...
Data from February 2026, rounded to 1 decimal place. Taken from WikiNav on Toolforge.

This data clearly suggests that PHON is article the majority of people hitting the disambig page are looking for. Doesn't this mean we should make it the primary topic and link to the disambig page in a hatnote? SnowyRiver28 (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Is there a way of getting a breakdown of readers by country? Ham II (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Not that I’m aware of, though I agree that would be a useful metric. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Perceived PTOPIC grabs are generally going to be contested. TarnishedPath ^talk 11:31, 23 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Pardon my ignorance, but contested how? Shouldn't this be a case of of 'what do the majority of visitors to a page want to see, let's point them there right away'? SnowyRiver28 (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
I agree that it should be about making navigation easier. TarnishedPath ^talk 11:40, 23 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Support – common name and primary topic. As per the pageviews analysis PHON was receiving significantly more views than all the other "one nation" topics even in mid-2025 period after the federal election and before the polling surge. I find it implausible that people looking for "one-nation conservatism" would be confused with "One Nation"; in the British context "one nation" is rarely capitalised and almost always followed by the word "conservative". PHON would seemingly outweigh the other topics in terms of historical significance given the substantial coverage in academia dating back to the party's emergence in the 1990s. I T B F 📢 12:13, 23 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
What would the target of one nation without capitalisation be if the Australian party becomes the target of One Nation? WP:SMALLDETAILS suggests that One Nation and One nation can have different targets, so I think the target for the term when it's not in title case should probably be the disambiguation page. Should the title of that dab page be One nation or One Nation (disambiguation)? At WP:DABNAME "The simplest form of the term is preferred to those containing punctuation and articles" seems to support One nation, and "The spelling that reflects the majority of items on the page is preferred to less common alternatives" seems to support One Nation (disambiguation), but perhaps the argument for the latter is stronger. Ham II (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Support, it does seem to be PRIMARYTOPIC at this point in time.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Support -- Consistency as primary topic of the disambiguation Wikiuser4999 (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Comment: I would prefer to wait until the party’s official name is updated with the AEC (as it remains formally registered as Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (PHON) and continues to use that name in formal contexts). However, within the framing of this move, One Nation is now clearly the WP:COMMONNAME and likely the WP:PTOPIC. If the choice is between doing it now or not doing it at all, I don’t have a strong objection to moving now. Maranello10 (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Support: Having fully considered the pageview and Wikinav evidence, I am comfortable that One Nation satisfies WP:PTOPIC. Combined with satisfying WP:COMMONNAME, it outweighs any concerns about AEC naming timing. Maranello10 (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

*Support: Even though the AEC still has them registered as Pauline Hanson's One Nation, the party has clearly been moving away from this styling, the Australian parliament website also now refers to them as just One Nation rather than PHON, I think it would make more sense to do it when the party change what they have registered with the AEC, but ultimately it i don't oppose changing it just One Nation Auspol4 (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

"One Nation" is already listed as their registered abbreviation with the AEC, which is probably why it is allowed to be used on the Australian parliament website. All else being equal, it does strengthen the case for changing it. Maranello10 (talk) 04:39, 24 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

While that is true, the party has only begun to be referred to as simply 'One Nation' on the aph.gov.au website from at least February-March of this year, judging from archive.org Wikiuser4999 (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The recency of the website shift makes the intervention more timely. I would still prefer to wait, but a move either now or later seems inevitable. An article from The Australian dated 19 January on the latest Newspoll still referred to them as PHON (which was already uncommon in news coverage at the time, aside from polling). A similar article from The Australian dated 1 March used ON. From a purely WP:COMMONNAME perspective, I think the discussion is basically over. Maranello10 (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Oppose But would Support something like One Nation (Australia), One Nation (Australian political party). I honestly do have some concern this could be Australia Centric and not reflecting a global view of the term, unless someone can provide sources that show it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term World Wide, then I would support a title to Disambiguate it. Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Note: WikiProject Politics/Political parties, WikiProject Conservatism, WikiProject Australian politics, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Women, and Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board have been notified of this discussion. Qwerty123M (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PTOPIC. Searches I've conducted indicate that One Nation is indeed now the common name and the Wikinav and Pageview analysis links I've provided above show the Australian political party to be the primary topic, going back at least 21 months which is good enough for me as far as long-term significance goes. TarnishedPath ^talk 05:12, 27 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Support a move, not sure about the target but also just noting that the state branches' websites all seem to be branded "One Nation South Australia", etc. (which I've removed for now as it's a section in the main article and needs renaming anyway). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:40, 27 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Support Clearly the primary topic now. Very unlikely readers will be searching for One Nation and expecting information on One nation conservatism. AusLondonder (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Oppose. From an Australian perspective, I think we are very vulnerable to falling into the trap of WP:BUTIKNOWABOUTIT, the fact is there are different articles with variations of the title "One Nation" for international topics. If the party changes their official name, I would change my position but for now, this only serves to remove information. I could however support the disambiguation "One Nation (Australian political party)" or "One Nation (Australia)" as those provide valuable information as to what this article may be about. Qwerty123M (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Support per nom GuesanLoyalist (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and above. It does seem from the evidence that this party is the primary topic for "One Nation". However, should consensus see otherwise, I'm also willing to support "One Nation (Australia)" or "One Nation (Australian political party)". Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Support both common name and primary topic. St Anselm (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Support "One Nation" is the most common name in the media and in general vernacular. Although I'm also open to having "One Nation (Australia)" or "One Nation Party" as i suggested in the earlier section to distinguish it from other one nation articles. Shrubshire (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"initially focused criticising the existence of non-Anglo-Celtic people in Australia"

[edit ]

this is a blatant lie, Pauline was married to a Polish immigrant, Corey Bernardi is Italian, there have been numerous non-white candidates and Fraser Anning was expelled for supporting White Australia. remove this lie. ~2026-18566-81 (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

this was added by Wistherdisc the same editor who added that One Nation is a Neo-Nazi Party. why is this blatant bias allowed on Wikipedia. ~2026-18566-81 (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Done: Further discussion per WP:RS can take place on the Talk page if needed. Maranello10 (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2026

[edit ]

This edit request to Pauline Hanson's One Nation has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Political Position: Right-wing to Far-right" to "Political Position: Right-wing" ~2026-14576-74 (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Qwerty123M (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Move 'seats in local government' to 'List of One Nation elected representatives'

[edit ]

I added the seats in local government side info a while back as it is used on other party pages such as some of the state divisions of political parties (eg victorian greens) problem is one nation doesnt really specify what councillors are affiliated with the party in the way the greens do (the vic greens website lists all of them), and if one nation keeps to grow the councillor list could continue to grow and get a bit bloated, while also being a bit misleading as we wont have a way of knowing the exact amount of affiliated councillors

At some point a page that details all one nation elected reps was made, and i took the time to add some of the local councillors to it, would it be a good idea if we deleted the seats in local government side bar and instead put all of the councillors onto the elected reps page? Auspol4 (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not a fan of detailing elected reps on general pages for parties. In some extreme cases (Victorian Socialists) I've seen editors try and push each and every elected rep into the lead. If an elected rep is notable enough for anyone to give a shit, they can have their own page and detail their affiliation on that. Others may differ. TarnishedPath ^talk 07:59, 2 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

No. That would be counter-productive to remove the sidebar and as TarnishedPath said many councillors are not notable unlike members of state, territory or federal Parliaments. Qwerty123M (talk) 08:04, 2 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Cannabis law

[edit ]

for 68 years cannabis being illegal has created black market and made innocent users criminals , if legalised blackmarket would no longer be interested and personal growers could report thieves .making it illegal 68 years ago was a mistake by government.and alcohol is far worse. The gov has it wrong. PLEASE fix it , its legal in act. , why not the rest of Australia ? ~2026-28172-10 (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2026

[edit ]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The line that One Nation has representative in the Shire of Esperance should be removed. In Western Australia there is no official party status given to Councilors in Local Government unlike other states. This candidate did not run on a One Nation ticket for the local election and there was no official endorsement of her candidacy for local government by the party. The news article is about her candidacy for a Federal seat. Western Australian Political Nerd (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Western Australian Political Nerd, the source may be about her running in the federal election for one nation, but it states that she is a councillor for Esperance. I'd want to see sourcing which confirms what you say, or refers to her as an independent in relation to being a councillor to be confident making the change you suggest. Do you have any sourcing to that effect? TarnishedPath ^talk 05:45, 13 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

From WALGA itself. https://walga.asn.au/media-and-resources/latest-news/council-member-state-or-federal-candidacy-%E2%80%93-walga-guidance-document

"Unlike some other States, Local Government in WA does not feature official political party affiliations and endorsement."

From the Western Australian Electoral Commission, no candidates in WA for local governments are listed as being member of a political party.

https://www.elections.wa.gov.au/elections/local/election#/130f521b-dca9-4174-8b12-5d739207d6a9/Esperance

And under the Local Government Act 1995 there are no provisions or legislative framework to confer any party status.

https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/prod/filestore.nsf/FileURL/mrdoc_49169.pdf/$FILE/Local%20Government%20Act%201995%20-%20%5B07-ar0-00%5D.pdf?OpenElement

The Department of Local Government also stipulates that the role of a councilor should be to have the ability to exercise independent judgement.

https://www.dlgsc.wa.gov.au/local-government/local-governments/council-elections/the-role-of-a-council-member

There are of course candidates who are members of political parties in local governance. But as this article states here "Local government elections in Western Australia are meant to be non-partisan, but in the City of Perth, party loyalties are hiding in plain sight.".

https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/liberal-legacies-labor-loyalties-and-lone-wolves-the-factions-in-the-race-for-perth-lord-mayor-20251002-p5mzie.html Western Australian Political Nerd (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Western Australian Political Nerd, so ballots in WA local government elections have no sort of group tickets at all? TarnishedPath ^talk 23:02, 13 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

That is correct. Local government elections in Western Australia do not have group voting. Some candidates will have HTV cards but they must remain completely unbranded with no political party identification. The system treats all candidates as individuals with no formal party role, endorsement process, or recognition on the ballot,

There has been in the past the parties declaring that a party member was running for them and the party endorsing them as a candidate. Such as two Greens candidates in 2023. https://www.watoday.com.au/politics/western-australia/local-government-elections-new-era-in-fremantle-a-former-eagle-rises-and-a-recount-in-perth-20210910-p58qnk.html

One Nation never endorsed this Councilor as a candidate for local government and therefore this wouldn't apply to them either.

If a person was listed as a local government representative, they would have the word "Independent" in front of them too as shown in other Wikipedia entries about it also labelling candidates as "Independent Green" or "Independent National". Showing they are not an official party representative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2023_Western_Australian_local_elections

I believe even this practice may be considered controversial on Wikipedia itself due to the banner warnings on said page that "This article's factual accuracy is disputed. (September 2024), This article may contain original research. (September 2024)."

So in summary;

1. One Nation never endorsed this candidate before the local government election.

2. Officially there is no partisan status allowed in local government in Western Australia.

3. Secondary sources also note that if someone has been endorsed by a party, they are put into a second category with the word "Independent". As seen from the previously provided Wikipedia entry. They have to sit according to the Local Government Act as an independent. Western Australian Political Nerd (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I've just conducted some searches and I've been unable to find any secondary sources which state that she represents One Nation in her role as councillor for Esperance Shire council. Therefore I've removed it from the article.

Please note that some of your writting comes accross to my like it might be AI generated. If that is the case please refer to WP:AITALK. TarnishedPath ^talk 02:22, 14 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for fixing it up.

No, I didn't use AI for any comments made. Even finding sources is more fun doing it the old fashioned way for me personally. I have time to waste and waste it I shall.

Robotic sounding language is my Modus operandi, I can try and sound more casual in future though if it comes across as rude to others. Western Australian Political Nerd (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Western Australian Political Nerd, it was the "So in summary" bit that perked my spidey-sense. All good. TarnishedPath ^talk 03:08, 14 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I can see how you could think that. I was just trying to reduce my word vomit to a manageable chunk, no AI.

Hope you have a good day. Western Australian Political Nerd (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You too. TarnishedPath ^talk 03:22, 14 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Also, what do secondary sources state? What did they state about the candicate when they were running for council? TarnishedPath ^talk 23:03, 13 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Done TarnishedPath ^talk 02:23, 14 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:One_Nation&oldid=1356663812"