One Nation leader Pauline Hanson is facing growing criticism over her decision to record a podcast with controversial British activist Tommy Robinson, with veteran commentator Andrew Bolt arguing the meeting risks undermining the credibility of a party that has recently enjoyed a significant surge in public support.

Writing in a strongly worded opinion piece published by the Herald Sun, Bolt questioned why Hanson chose to publicly associate herself with Robinson, whose criminal record and long-running controversies have made him one of Britain’s most polarising political figures.

Rather than focusing solely on Robinson himself, Bolt argued that the bigger issue is what the association says about Hanson at a time when One Nation is attempting to convince Australians it is ready to become a serious governing force.

“Pauline Hanson shouldn’t have met with British far-right thug Tommy Robinson,” Bolt wrote, urging the One Nation leader to publicly acknowledge that meeting Robinson had been a mistake rather than allowing doubts about her judgement to linger.

The criticism comes during an unusually strong period for One Nation. Recent polling has shown the party enjoying record levels of support in several states, with growing dissatisfaction over cost-of-living pressures, housing affordability, immigration and energy policy contributing to increased backing for minor parties.

Bolt argued that this momentum creates an opportunity—but also places greater responsibility on Hanson to demonstrate that One Nation is capable of attracting credible candidates and presenting itself as a genuine alternative government.

According to Bolt, controversial associations risk driving away professional candidates while encouraging extremists to identify with the party instead.

“She needs credibility,” he argued, suggesting that building a government-in-waiting requires more than attracting protest votes.

Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, first became prominent as a founder of the now-defunct English Defence League. Over many years he has attracted widespread criticism for his anti-Islam activism and has accumulated multiple criminal convictions involving offences including assault, fraud, harassment and contempt of court.

He remains a highly divisive figure in British politics, drawing both devoted supporters and fierce critics. Several mainstream conservative politicians in the United Kingdom have publicly distanced themselves from him.

Bolt pointed specifically to Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, who has repeatedly rejected Robinson’s involvement with his party and previously declared him unsuitable for mainstream political participation.

Despite that background, Robinson warmly welcomed Hanson during her visit to Britain, praising her publicly on social media as “one of the bravest” politicians and expressing hope she could one day become Australia’s leader. Hanson subsequently appeared on Robinson’s podcast and toured the English town of Luton alongside him, discussing immigration and demographic change.

Videos from the visit showed mixed reactions from local residents. Some greeted Robinson and Hanson positively, while others confronted Robinson directly and accused him of racism.

The visit formed part of Hanson’s broader United Kingdom tour, during which she has attended conservative political events and held meetings with a range of right-leaning figures.

Researchers who study political communication have suggested the trip fits a wider strategy of building One Nation’s international profile through highly visible appearances that generate substantial online attention, regardless of whether coverage is positive or negative.

The Robinson meeting also follows another high-profile controversy involving Australian media personality Karl Stefanovic.

Only weeks earlier, Stefanovic interviewed Robinson on his independent podcast. The interview was later removed from several online platforms after attracting widespread criticism, and the controversy ultimately coincided with Stefanovic’s departure from Nine. Hanson later reposted the interview on her own YouTube channel, defending both Robinson and Stefanovic against accusations of censorship.

Bolt had already criticised Stefanovic’s interview at the time, describing Robinson as a dangerous figure who should not be treated as a heroic political voice. His latest criticism suggests he believes Hanson ignored those earlier warnings.

Rather than accusing Hanson of sharing Robinson’s views outright, Bolt argued she now faces a simple political choice: explain that she exercised poor judgement or convince voters that Robinson genuinely represents the type of figure she wishes to associate with.

That distinction, he suggested, could become increasingly important as One Nation seeks to broaden its electoral appeal beyond traditional protest voters.

The debate arrives while Australia’s political landscape continues to fragment. Support for Labor and the Coalition has weakened in several opinion polls, allowing smaller parties and independents to gain greater influence. One Nation has been among the biggest beneficiaries of that shift, particularly among voters frustrated by rising living costs, immigration levels and dissatisfaction with the major parties.

Political analysts note that growing support also brings heightened scrutiny. Minor parties seeking to transition from protest movements into governing alternatives often face tougher examination of leadership decisions, candidate quality and political alliances.

That broader context helps explain why Bolt’s criticism has attracted attention beyond ideological divisions. Although he has frequently expressed sympathy for tougher immigration policies, his objection centred on Robinson’s personal conduct and criminal history rather than debates over migration itself.

Hanson has not publicly indicated that she regrets recording the podcast. Instead, her recent public appearances suggest she remains comfortable defending her decision to engage with controversial figures as part of broader discussions about free speech, immigration and Western politics.

Whether that strategy strengthens One Nation’s appeal or limits its ability to attract mainstream support remains an open political question.

For Bolt, however, the answer is considerably more straightforward.

He concluded that Hanson should simply admit she made a mistake before the controversy damages the party’s long-term prospects.

“Either tell us you knew all this about Robinson and still think he’s your man,” Bolt wrote, “or tell us you were a fool.”