In the playhouse of Australian politics, Senators Pauline Hanson and Jacinta Nampijinpa Price stand out as influential conservative voices. While their backgrounds and personal journeys differ significantly, their political alignment, voting records, and public stances reveal striking similarities. This article charts the convergence between Hanson, the provocative leader of One Nation, and Price, the Indigenous senator who recently defected to the Liberal Party, showing how their shared ideologies have made them formidable figures in Australia’s Senate.
Shared Political Stances
Both Hanson and Price are rooted in conservative politics, though their affiliations differ. Hanson leads One Nation, a right-wing party known for its nationalist and anti-establishment rhetoric, while Price represents the conservative Coalition through the Liberal Party. Their ideologies converge on several key issues, most notably their opposition to the Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Both senators campaigned against the proposal, arguing it fosters division. Hanson has praised Price’s parliamentary speeches on the issue, calling her a “sensible voice” for Aboriginal Australians, while Price has echoed Hanson’s concerns about the politicisation of Indigenous issues.
Their alignment extends to parliamentary voting. Since May 2022, Hanson and Price have voted together in 91% of divisions – a remarkable overlap that reflects their shared skepticism of progressive policies, particularly around issues such as transgender rights and identity politics. Both have also criticised the use of Welcome to Country ceremonies, viewing them as politicised gestures. Hanson made headlines by turning her back during one such ceremony in the Senate, an act Price defended, arguing that these rituals are often exploited for political gain and objectify Indigenous Australians.
Nationalism and Public Perception
Hanson and Price both emphasise Australian national identity, often in opposition to progressive or multicultural narratives. Price’s choice to drape herself in the Australian flag on its anniversary mirrors Hanson’s vocal defence of national pride. This shared nationalism has drawn criticism from progressive groups, who accuse both of promoting divisive or far-right views. Hanson’s One Nation has been labeled a hate group, while Price has faced backlash for comments downplaying the negative impacts of colonisation on Indigenous Australians. These controversies place them in similar crosshairs, despite their distinct approaches.
Their mutual support further cements their alliance. Hanson has publicly endorsed Price, praising her as a voice for Indigenous communities. Price, in turn, has defended Hanson and One Nation, rejecting comparisons to the Greens and arguing that Hanson’s party is not “anti-Australian.” This camaraderie underscores their shared mission to challenge what they see as divisive progressive policies.
Contrasting Backgrounds, Shared Politics
Hanson and Price come from very different worlds, yet both have built careers out of stoking resentment and positioning themselves as outsiders to the so-called elite. Hanson, a disendorsed Liberal candidate who founded One Nation in 1997, has made a career of blunt, inflammatory rhetoric that trades in fear of immigration and difference. Price, presenting herself as the “practical” Indigenous voice against progressives, frames her rejection of the Voice to Parliament and other reforms as common sense – but in doing so, dismisses historical injustices and entrenches division. Hanson thrives on provocation; Price packages the same politics in more measured tones. What unites them is not their background, but a shared commitment to grievance as political strategy.
Conclusion
Despite their contrasting personal stories, Hanson and Price are united by a politics that thrives on division, resentment, and the rejection of progressive reform. Their near-identical voting record makes them less an unlikely duo and more ideological twins, each amplifying the other’s message. In truth, Price’s brand of politics would sit more comfortably in One Nation, but Hanson’s vehicle is too small for her ambitions. The Liberal Party, with its broader platform, gives her greater reach – and that makes her alliance with Hanson’s brand of grievance politics not just troubling, but dangerous for Australia’s political future.
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
Pauline Hanson’s views are shaped by fish and chips shop customers without clear logic. Price has passing privilege and does NOT speak for Indigenous Australians. Hanson does not want to understand that interference in Aboriginal communities has caused resentment.
It appears Cool Pete has a disregard for “fish and chip shop customers”, I wonder why?
As for Jacinta Price,, if she is unqualified to speak on first nation topic, wh can?
Both are elected representative of the Australian electorate and reflect a substantial point of view.
But do Hanson and Price make any worthwhile contribution to our parliamentary processes ?
Let’s not forget that it was Price (and Warren Mundine) who effectively sank the Voice campaign – people listened to these so called Aboriginal leaders.
Michael I agree with what you say.
Hanson appears to have the racism and white Australia policy of the colonisers of Australia! Whether it be against indiginous, moslem or any other non-white immigrants!
Price allies herself with almost the most conservative and anti indiginous party in the country! All quite incongrous! Does it involve in both cases the inteligence quotent, religion, upbringing or any other factors?
The likes oh Price and Mundine have enabled racist white Australians to vent their vile beliefs.
I am lost for words to describe how I feel about this pair who denigrate and profit from indigenous people.
Sorry but I didn’t get past reading “Both Hanson and Price are rooted…” I just burst out laughing and had to leave the room.
There’s already one model of resentment in Parliament that’s been there far too long!
The other popped its ugly head up last week with biffing a reporter who was doing his job, so that’s two buggered widgets from Queensland. Katter is anti-abortion; anti climate change and prefers ethanol solutions, that ensures his vote with sugar cane growers; opposes gun control; anti-immigration even though his Lebanese background is well known, free for me but not for thee; and is not that friendly to Indigenous Australians.
The only thing he is for is for keeping his own snout in the taxpayer’s trough, period.
There’s an old saying that goes something like this “you get more with honey than you do with vinegar”.
Manipulation and deception are all these people seem to have in common, along with the fact that they are indeed a weird mob.