ss Pauline Hanson’s $90 BILLION Plan to Shake Up Australia — Pulls Out of UN, WHO, WEF and Cuts NDIS

Pauline Hanson stunned the nation after unveiling her sweeping “$90 Billion Plan to Save Australia,” a blueprint she claims will completely overhaul government spending. Her proposal includes withdrawing Australia from the UN, WHO, and WEF, which she argues have imposed unnecessary costs and foreign influence.

The announcement electrified One Nation supporters. Hanson insisted that Australia must reclaim full sovereignty and stop “funding global bureaucrats who don’t care about Australian families.” She argued that global institutions drain billions every year while delivering minimal benefit to ordinary taxpayers.

Central to her proposal is the abolition of the Department of Climate Change. Hanson said the department has “failed to produce real outcomes,” instead spending fortunes on consultants and paperwork while electricity prices continue to rise. She vowed to redirect funding to practical domestic projects.

Her plan also calls for slashing NDIS funding, but only for those she claims abuse the system. Hanson emphasized the scheme must prioritize Australians with genuine needs, not waste billions on administrative layers or questionable claims. Her supporters praised the promise of tighter oversight.

Within 24 hours of her announcement, One Nation’s polling numbers surged to an unprecedented 19 percent, the highest in the party’s history. Analysts noted that the jump reflected widespread frustration with rising living costs and dissatisfaction with the major parties.

Political strategists warned that the surge signaled deeper public discontent. Many voters, especially in rural areas, resonated with Hanson’s promise to cut bureaucratic waste and redirect money toward essential national infrastructure instead of international obligations.

The plan outlines how Hanson believes the government can save $90 billion each year. She argued these funds could be returned directly to Australian households through tax reductions, cost-of-living relief, and improved essential services. Critics questioned whether the savings were realistic.

Hanson also promised to revive coal power generation to cut electricity prices by an estimated 30 percent. She claimed renewable energy policies have “crippled Australian families” and failed to deliver affordability, positioning coal as the only reliable path forward.

The proposal included major investments in dams, railways, and water management systems. Hanson argued that Australia must strengthen domestic productivity instead of “handing billions to globalists.” Her message appealed strongly to voters who feel left behind by metropolitan-focused policies.

Economic experts debated the feasibility of withdrawing from the UN, WHO, and WEF. Some warned it could strain diplomatic relationships and affect trade agreements. Others suggested the boldness of her plan was precisely why it resonated with a disillusioned voter base.

In Parliament, politicians from both major parties criticized the proposal as reckless and unrealistic. They argued that abandoning international partnerships would harm Australia’s global standing. But Hanson countered that Australians care more about affordability than diplomatic niceties.

Media outlets quickly zeroed in on the political shockwave. Analysts said the 19 percent polling surge demonstrated a rare moment where fringe-party messaging broke into mainstream debate, potentially reshaping the political landscape ahead of the next election.

Inside One Nation headquarters, the atmosphere was jubilant. Party insiders said Hanson’s team had anticipated a strong reaction, but the magnitude of public support exceeded all expectations. They described this as a turning point for the party’s national ambitions.

Voters frustrated with rising taxes embraced the promise of returning billions to the public. Many said they felt the government had grown too large and disconnected from everyday Australian struggles, making Hanson’s blunt calls for reform particularly appealing.

Her proposal for major dam construction reignited debates about long-term water security. Supporters said investing in dams would strengthen agriculture and regional economies, while opponents argued the environmental impact could be severe and difficult to justify.

The call for expanded railway projects also sparked discussion. Hanson argued stronger infrastructure would reduce transportation costs and boost regional development. Critics questioned whether heavy investment in traditional industries ignored modern sustainable alternatives.

Despite the controversy, Hanson’s supporters celebrated the plan as a bold, necessary correction to decades of mismanagement. They praised her willingness to challenge global institutions and bureaucratic excess, claiming few politicians dare to speak as openly.

The political establishment remained uneasy as the polling surge showed no signs of slowing. Insiders worried that growing public anger toward rising prices and perceived government waste could further propel One Nation’s momentum in coming months.

Some analysts suggested the plan’s appeal lies not in its technical feasibility but in its emotional clarity. Hanson frames herself as the only leader willing to confront “globalists” and return power to ordinary Australians, a message that strongly resonates with disillusioned voters.

Tension escalated when economists warned that slashing international commitments could disrupt funding arrangements and global cooperation. Hanson dismissed the concerns, claiming Australia must prioritize national interests rather than international expectations.

Political commentators noted that the plan might shift national debates leading into the next election. Even if not implemented, the pressure could force major parties to adopt more aggressive cost-of-living and anti-waste policies to appease frustrated voters.

Five minutes after the announcement gained momentum online, Hanson released a nine-word message that spread across the country. Though simple, its tone captured the raw frustration of millions and quickly became the rallying cry for her growing movement.

Supporters shared the message across social media, framing it as a declaration of defiance against out-of-touch elites. Within hours, it appeared on posters, T-shirts, and community pages, becoming one of the most viral political slogans of the year.

By evening, political analysts acknowledged that Hanson had changed the tone of national conversation. Whether her $90 billion plan succeeds or fails, it forced Australia to confront difficult questions about spending, sovereignty, and the role of international institutions.

As the controversy intensified, observers noted that Hanson thrives in moments like these. The louder the backlash from critics, the more her supporters rally behind her. The rising poll numbers proved that her message, once dismissed, now commands national attention.

In the days ahead, every major party will face pressure to respond. Some may choose to dismiss Hanson’s plan entirely, while others might quietly adopt portions of it to avoid losing further support. Either way, the debate has only begun.