Lessons in Populism

By Callen Sorensen Karklis

White Australia Policy (1901-1973)

Australia’s history is often framed as a dream of colonial pioneers striving to build a kind of “socialist” utopia. In reality, this vision was shaped by myth, and came at the expense of both the harsh realities of convict settlement and the dispossession of First Nations peoples.

The gold rushes opened up new possibilities for what Australia could become. Towns like Ballarat helped drive a mining boom that turned Melbourne into one of the world’s fastest-growing cities in the 1880s. In Queensland, places like Gympie played a similar role in building prosperity, with many families – including my own – finding opportunities in the gold industry. These developments attracted migrants not only from Britain, but also from across Asia, contributing to a rapidly changing society.

While many settlers imagined a more equal and fair society, British colonial authorities – largely conservative in outlook – often resisted such ideals. Policies like heavy and unequal taxation, particularly in Victoria, led to unrest, culminating in events such as the Eureka Stockade in 1854. In the decades that followed, pastoral and mining workers continued to organise, contributing to the rise of the labour movement and, ultimately, the formation of the Australian Labor Party in 1891, which pushed for fairer working conditions.

At the same time, increasing migration from Asia created anxiety among settlers of British descent, who feared competition from cheaper labour and the loss of cultural dominance. These concerns influenced early federal politics. Under leaders like Chris Watson, and with the support of Protectionist allies such as Edmund Barton and Alfred Deakin, the newly federated nation introduced the White Australia policy. This policy restricted non-British, and later non-European, immigration and remained in place – supported by governments across the political spectrum – for decades.

The policy was particularly entrenched during the post-war years under Robert Menzies in the 1950s and 1960s, even as early movements for civil rights began to emerge. Over time, a nostalgic narrative developed that portrayed this period as simpler and better, often overlooking both its social injustices and the economic limitations it imposed on Australia’s relationship with its region.

Understanding this history matters. The tensions between exclusion and inclusion, and between conservatism and reform, have shaped modern Australia. Without recognising the influence of right-wing populism in the past, it is difficult to fully appreciate the development of the progressive values many Australians hold today.

Rise of Multicultural Australia (1973–1996)

The Labor governments of John Curtin and Ben Chifley (1941–1949) began rebuilding Australia after World War II, including expanding immigration beyond Britain to parts of Europe. This marked an early shift away from the narrow foundations of the past.

 

Further change came under Coalition Prime Minister Harold Holt, who in 1966 introduced reforms that reduced racial discrimination in immigration policy. These changes allowed non-European migrants with skills to settle in Australia and shortened the pathway to citizenship to five years.

A decisive turning point followed during the government of Gough Whitlam. In 1973, the White Australia policy was formally abolished, and in 1975 the Racial Discrimination Act was introduced, embedding legal protections against racial discrimination. Together, these reforms helped transform Australia from a predominantly white, protectionist society into a more open and multicultural nation.

This transformation continued in the years that followed. Under Malcolm Fraser (1975–1983), Australia accepted significant numbers of refugees after the Vietnam War, further shaping its multicultural identity. Then, during the Labor governments of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating (1983–1996), major economic reforms shifted Australia away from protectionism towards a more open, globally integrated, and market-driven economy.

These changes brought both opportunity and tension. While they contributed to economic growth and a more diverse society, they also created pressures within parts of the traditional working class. Over time, these pressures intensified – particularly through events like the Global Financial Crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic – as rising costs of living and widening income inequality exposed deeper social and economic divides.

Lessons from the Confederate States of America (1861-1865)

The United States was founded on ideals of democracy and equality, yet from the beginning it was deeply entangled in the system of slavery – particularly the forced labour of Africans brought to the American colonies. This contradiction shaped the nation’s early history and created divisions that would eventually erupt into conflict.

Less than a century after the American Revolution, these tensions reached a breaking point. The election of Abraham Lincoln, who opposed the expansion of slavery, prompted eleven Southern states – whose economies relied heavily on enslaved labour – to secede from the Union. This led to the American Civil War, a brutal conflict in which the Confederacy fought to preserve slavery and assert states’ rights. Around 750,000 Americans died in the war.

Although the Union prevailed under Lincoln’s leadership, the post-war period was fraught with challenges. Following Lincoln’s assassination, Reconstruction struggled to deliver lasting equality. Segregation laws and racially motivated violence became widespread, often supported by former Confederate figures who helped establish groups like the Ku Klux Klan. These systems of racial control bore similarities to later regimes such as Apartheid.

Significant change did not come until nearly a century later, during the civil rights movement. Leaders like Martin Luther King Jr., along with political support from figures such as John F. Kennedy, helped push forward reforms in the early to mid-1960s. Their efforts led to landmark changes that challenged segregation and advanced civil rights, reshaping American society.

Lessons from Hitler’s Nazi Germany (1933 – 1945)

The Nazi Party was founded in 1920 in the aftermath of the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I and left Germany politically unstable and economically strained. Despite its name, the party was not socialist in practice; rather, it promoted an extreme form of right-wing nationalism. Its ideology was built on xenophobia and scapegoating, particularly targeting Jewish people, as well as other minorities including the Romani, people with disabilities, and members of the LGBTIQA+ community.

These ideas gained traction during the Great Depression, triggered by the 1929 Wall Street crash, which caused widespread unemployment and economic hardship across the world- especially in post-war Europe.

During this period, Germany was governed by the Weimar Republic, a democratic system that, despite periods of stability, struggled under the weight of economic crisis and political division. It was in this climate that Adolf Hitler rose to prominence. Appointed Chancellor in 1933, he quickly consolidated power, later assuming the title of Führer.

Once in control, Hitler dismantled democratic institutions. Freedom of the press was abolished and replaced with a state-controlled propaganda machine. Political opposition was outlawed, and dissent was suppressed. The regime systematically persecuted minorities and expanded aggressively across Europe, leading to the outbreak of World War II, drawing in Britain, its allies, and eventually the United States.

The Nazi regime was responsible for the Holocaust, in which six million Jews were murdered, alongside millions of others who were killed through war, persecution, and genocide. Nazi Germany was ultimately defeated by Allied forces, including the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom. As Allied troops closed in on Berlin in 1945, Hitler took his own life.

In the aftermath, the Nuremberg Trials established a precedent for international law by holding leading Nazi officials accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity. This period also contributed to the creation of the United Nations and the development of a modern rules-based international order.

This dark chapter in history stands as a powerful reminder of the consequences of extremism, hatred, and unchecked power. While some may point to infrastructure projects like the autobahn, such claims are overwhelmingly overshadowed by the scale of human suffering caused by the regime. Despite this, there remain fringe groups who attempt to glorify Hitler’s rule – highlighting the ongoing importance of remembering and confronting this history.

Lessons from the Joh Era (1968 – 1987)

While much can be learned from international examples such as the Confederacy or Nazi Germany, a more relevant case for Australia is found closer to home in the legacy of Joh Bjelke-Petersen – often described as a uniquely Australian form of right-wing populist leadership.

For much of the early 20th century, Queensland was dominated by Labor governments, holding power from 1915 to 1967. During this period, they introduced major reforms, including improved working conditions, the expansion of state-owned enterprises, and significant infrastructure projects such as the Story Bridge and the University of Queensland. These developments helped shape modern Queensland.

This long period of Labor dominance came to an end following the Australian Labor Party split, which weakened the party at both state and federal levels. In its place, the conservative Country Party, led by Frank Nicklin, came to power. Nicklin’s government focused on stability during a renewed mining boom, investing in infrastructure while also benefiting from an electoral system that favoured rural areas over metropolitan ones.

After Nicklin’s retirement and the brief premiership of Jack Pizzey – who died in office after just six months – Bjelke-Petersen rose to leadership. A former peanut farmer, he proved to be more forceful and authoritarian than his predecessors.

His time in office saw major development projects, including the electrification of Brisbane, the construction of the Gateway Bridge, and the Wivenhoe Dam. Events like the 1982 Commonwealth Games and Expo 88 helped raise Queensland’s international profile.

However, these achievements were overshadowed by serious concerns about governance. Bjelke-Petersen’s government became known for its harsh response to political dissent, restrictions on civil liberties, and a close, often controversial relationship with the police force. Allegations of corruption and misconduct were widespread, leading to what many have described as a “police state” era in Queensland’s history.

These concerns were later exposed through the Fitzgerald Inquiry, which resulted in the jailing of several senior figures, including a former police commissioner. Although Bjelke-Petersen himself avoided conviction, the inquiry fundamentally reshaped Queensland politics and public trust in government.

His political legacy continued to influence figures such as Pauline Hanson, whom he supported during the 1990s. His brand of populist, regional-focused politics still echoes in parts of Queensland today, particularly in areas where parties like One Nation continue to attract support.

This history is not just political – it is also personal. In regions like Gympie, where my own family has connections, local figures such as my great-great-grandfather James William Hughes (40-year alderman as the former Gympie Town Treasurer, 1933-1958 and Deputy Mayor 1944-1958) were part of the same political and social networks that shaped the era. Bjelke-Petersen himself served as the member for Nanango and later Barambah for decades, overlapping with many local leaders and families, including those connected to Kevin Rudd.

The legacy of this period casts a long shadow over Queensland politics. It serves as a reminder of how populist leadership, particularly when combined with weak institutional oversight, can leave lasting impacts on democratic systems and public trust.

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation First Rise and Fall (1994 – 2009)

In 1994–1995, Pauline Hanson was elected to Ipswich City Council as a candidate aligned with the Liberal Party. In 1996, she was disendorsed as the Liberal candidate for the federal seat of Oxley, but her name remained on the ballot. Running as an independent, she won the seat with 54 per cent of the vote.

Soon after entering Parliament, Hanson delivered her controversial “Swamped by Asians” speech, which strongly opposed multiculturalism and marked a sharp departure from the direction Australia had taken under leaders such as Paul Keating. Her views resonated with a segment of voters who felt uneasy about economic and social change.

In 1997, Hanson founded the One Nation party. It quickly gained traction, particularly in Queensland, where it won 11 seats in the state parliament. Although Hanson lost her federal seat at the 1998 election, One Nation continued to achieve electoral success, securing Senate representation for two terms until 2005, as well as a seat in the New South Wales Parliament in 1999.

However, internal divisions soon weakened the party. Between 1999 and 2003, One Nation split between its Queensland branch and federal leadership amid disputes and allegations of electoral fraud. In Queensland, several MPs broke away to form the City Country Alliance, but support for both groups declined sharply.

Despite these setbacks, One Nation still managed to win three seats at the 2001 Queensland state election and another three in Western Australia the same year. In 2003, Hanson was imprisoned for electoral fraud, serving around 11 weeks before her conviction was overturned by the Queensland Court of Appeal.

By 2004, support for One Nation had fallen significantly. One of its last remaining Queensland MPs, Rosa Lee Long, held her seat until 2009.

Despite its decline during this period, Hanson’s style of politics—marked by populism, nationalism, and scepticism toward multiculturalism—has retained a base of support and continues to influence parts of the Australian political landscape today.

Wilderness Years (2004 – 2016)

During the era of John Howard, the Coalition government adopted tougher positions on immigration and national security. These policies helped draw support away from One Nation, as many of its voters shifted back to the major conservative party. As a result, One Nation struggled to win federal or state seats during this period.

This shift was particularly evident around the 2001 federal election, shaped by events such as the Tampa affair, the September 11 attacks in the United States, and the Bali bombings. National security and border protection became dominant political issues.

However, the Howard government’s industrial relations reforms—especially WorkChoices—triggered a strong backlash from the labour movement. Campaigns such as “Your Rights at Work” mobilised widespread opposition. Under the leadership of Kevin Rudd, Labor capitalised on this momentum and won a decisive victory in 2007.

The subsequent Labor governments of Rudd and Julia Gillard (2007–2013) introduced a range of reforms, including climate policies such as carbon pricing, mining taxation, expanded education and health initiatives, and the creation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The government also formally apologised to the Stolen Generations and ended Australia’s combat role in conflicts such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

During the Global Financial Crisis, the government implemented major economic stimulus measures to protect the economy. At the same time, increased arrivals of asylum seekers by boat became a contentious political issue, contributing to renewed support for populist movements, including a revival of interest in One Nation.

Despite this, Pauline Hanson struggled to regain political traction after her departure from One Nation. Her attempt to establish a new party, Pauline Hanson’s United Australia Party, failed to secure electoral success between 2007 and 2010.

Public dissatisfaction with both major parties grew, culminating in the 2010 federal election, which produced Australia’s first hung parliament in decades. Neither Labor nor the Coalition secured a majority, highlighting a shift in voter sentiment.

During this period, Tony Abbott replaced Malcolm Turnbull as Liberal leader and campaigned strongly against carbon pricing, the mining tax, and aspects of immigration policy. Labor’s internal instability saw Rudd eventually return as Prime Minister, with Anthony Albanese as his deputy, in an effort to limit electoral losses.

Abbott went on to win the 2013 federal election. Around the same time, new populist parties emerged. Businessman Clive Palmer founded the Palmer United Party, which secured Senate seats and won the seat of Fairfax. Meanwhile, Bob Katter established Katter’s Australia Party, which gained support in regional Queensland and held multiple state seats during the Newman government era. These parties drew on similar voter dissatisfaction, appealing to those who felt disconnected from the major parties.

At the same time, former One Nation MP Rosa Lee Long remained active in public life, serving as mayor of the Tablelands region from 2012 to 2016. Her tenure focused on local infrastructure, opposition to council amalgamations, and advocacy for regional industries such as agriculture and forestry.

Although One Nation declined during this period, the broader political environment showed that its core themes – regional discontent, scepticism of globalisation, and populist messaging – remained influential. Other movements, including those led by Palmer and Katter, attempted to fill this space, though often with mixed or short-lived success.

Trumpism, Brexit and UKIP, Xi and Putin (2016 – Present)

Following the presidency of Barack Obama (2009–2017), the long-term effects of the Global Financial Crisis continued to shape political attitudes, particularly among working-class communities. Many became increasingly disillusioned with neoliberal economic policies, rising income inequality, housing pressures, and the overall cost of living.

This sense of frustration was not limited to the United States. Similar trends emerged across much of the Western world, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom, and parts of Europe. In contrast, countries such as Russia and China moved in a more authoritarian direction under leaders like Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, who emphasised nationalism and state control, alongside increased military investment.

In the United States, this political climate created an opening for Donald Trump, a businessman and media figure who ran for president on a populist platform. Campaigning on slogans such as “drain the swamp,” Trump appealed to voters who felt left behind by economic and political systems. His message, while very different in ideology, tapped into some of the same frustrations that also fuelled support for figures like Bernie Sanders.

Trump’s campaign focused heavily on nationalism, immigration restrictions, and economic protectionism, contrasting with the platform of his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, who emphasised climate policy, civil rights, and institutional reform. Although Clinton won the popular vote, Trump secured victory through the Electoral College, becoming president in 2016.

During his presidency, Trump implemented corporate tax cuts and withdrew the United States from international agreements such as the Paris Climate Accord and the World Health Organization. His administration faced significant criticism during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly over its handling of the crisis. At the same time, events such as the killing of George Floyd sparked widespread protests over racial justice.

In 2020, Joe Biden was elected, promising a return to more traditional governance, including economic stimulus measures and renewed climate commitments.

Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, the Brexit referendum marked a major turning point. Then-Prime Minister David Cameron called the vote but ultimately resigned after the “Leave” campaign – championed by figures such as Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage – was successful.

The years that followed were marked by political instability and economic uncertainty, compounded by the pandemic and ongoing adjustments to life outside the European Union. The UK saw a rapid succession of Conservative leaders, including Theresa May, Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak.

This period of instability eventually contributed to the election of a Labor government under Keir Starmer. However, challenges such as inflation, cost-of-living pressures, and declining trust in political institutions have remained significant.

Across both the United States and the United Kingdom – and more broadly across the Western world – these developments reflect a deeper shift. Economic pressures, political fragmentation, and the spread of disinformation have contributed to growing public dissatisfaction with institutions and democratic systems.

Taken together, these trends suggest a period of transition in the global order, as nations grapple with competing pressures of globalisation, nationalism, and economic change.

Resurgence of Hansonism (2014 – Present)

Following the election of Donald Trump in 2016, there was renewed momentum for populist movements globally, including in Australia. During this period, Pauline Hanson re-emerged in the public eye through media appearances, helping rebuild her political profile after years on the sidelines.

Hanson regained control of the struggling One Nation, which had faced organisational instability under leaders such as Jim Savage and Ian Nelson. Under her leadership, the party recovered sufficiently to contest the 2016 federal election.

At that election – held after Malcolm Turnbull replaced Tony Abbott as prime minister – One Nation secured four Senate seats. This gave Hanson and her party a significant presence in the upper house, at times holding the balance of power between 2016 and 2019.

During this period, One Nation played a role in shaping legislative outcomes. The party opposed measures such as the “Ensuring Integrity” Bill, which targeted unions, and the proposed cash transaction limits. It also pushed for inquiries into the family law system and negotiated concessions in areas such as regional funding, apprenticeships, and drought relief in exchange for its support on government legislation.

Despite internal controversies that reduced its Senate numbers, One Nation retained representation through the 2019 and 2022 federal elections, and later saw a renewed resurgence. This occurred even as the Anthony Albanese-led Labor government secured a large parliamentary majority.

Recent polling suggests a shifting political landscape, with support for minor parties – including One Nation – remaining significant. At the same time, the Coalition, now led by Angus Taylor, faces challenges in maintaining voter support. This has raised the possibility of a more fragmented conservative vote heading into future elections.

Some developments, including the involvement of figures such as Barnaby Joyce and Cory Bernardi in broader conservative and populist movements, highlight the ongoing realignment within Australian politics. In certain states, these shifts have already influenced electoral outcomes and policy debates, particularly around issues such as climate policy and Indigenous recognition.

Looking ahead, the rise of minor parties and the fragmentation of traditional voting blocs could lead to more complex electoral dynamics. This may include situations where parties compete for similar constituencies while also needing to cooperate to form effective opposition or government.

Potential Implications of a Hanson PHON (LNP Coalition Government):

Key policy directions associated with Pauline Hanson and One Nation have raised significant debate about their potential social and economic impact.

Proposals to reduce annual migration to around 130,000 and pursue stricter enforcement against undocumented migrants could lead to tougher border control measures. Critics argue that approaches similar to those used under Donald Trump in the United States risk increasing division within the community.

At the same time, ongoing concerns around inflation and the rising cost of living remain central to the political debate, shaping voter sentiment and policy priorities.

Some proposals have also suggested withdrawing from major international institutions, including the World Health Organization and the United Nations, as well as stepping back from agreements such as the UN Refugee Convention. Critics warn that such moves could isolate Australia diplomatically, complicate trade and cooperation, and weaken responses to global challenges such as pandemics.

On climate policy, calls to abandon net-zero commitments and carbon reduction strategies have also drawn concern. Opponents argue that reducing climate action could increase Australia’s exposure to extreme weather events – such as droughts, floods, bushfires, and cyclones – while also straining relationships with regional neighbours, particularly in the Pacific.

Other policy positions include support for nuclear energy – an idea also raised by Coalition figures such as Peter Dutton – as well as proposals to reduce government spending, including a large-scale budget savings plan.

There have also been debates around social policy, including calls to review existing legal frameworks on issues such as domestic violence, abortion rights, and freedom of speech. Critics argue that some of these positions risk undermining protections for vulnerable groups, while supporters frame them as efforts to rebalance legal and cultural norms.

Additionally, concerns have been raised about rhetoric directed toward minority groups, including refugees, First Nations peoples, and LGBTIQA+ communities, and the potential social consequences of such narratives.

Taken together, these policy directions reflect a broader populist approach that emphasises nationalism, reduced government intervention in some areas, and scepticism toward international institutions. Supporters see this as a necessary correction to current policy settings, while critics argue it risks repeating aspects of earlier exclusionary policies, such as those associated with the White Australia era.

More broadly, comparisons are often drawn with developments in the United States under Trump, where similar themes of economic nationalism and political disruption reshaped public debate. In the Australian context, the long-term implications of such an approach would likely extend beyond domestic policy, influencing the country’s economic position and its relationships within the region and globally.

Marriage of Convenience:

There are ongoing questions about whether One Nation can maintain unity as it grows. Populist movements often face internal tensions, and One Nation has experienced this before – most notably during the 1999–2001 split in Queensland that led to the City Country Alliance. Similar factional strains have also been seen internationally, including within movements aligned with Donald Trump.

More recent developments suggest the potential for further internal contradictions. Reports have raised concerns about individuals connected to the party, alongside the increasingly diverse – and at times conflicting – backgrounds of those now involved in its broader movement.

In South Australia, for example, figures such as Cory Bernardi have brought together a coalition of supporters with very different political histories. One frequently cited case is Jason Virgo, a former Labor branch secretary who later ran as a Sex Party candidate in the 2010 and 2013 federal elections. He went on to serve on Mount Gambier City Council and was previously involved in immigration services, while also playing a role in the marriage equality campaign in South Australia. His current association with a movement led by Bernardi – who publicly opposed marriage equality – highlights the kind of ideological contrasts now present within parts of the party’s orbit.

Such differences may broaden electoral appeal, but they can also create underlying tensions. When individuals with sharply contrasting political histories and policy positions operate within the same movement, questions inevitably arise about long-term cohesion and direction.

At the same time, One Nation and aligned groups continue to campaign strongly on issues such as opposition to net-zero climate policies and resistance to Indigenous constitutional recognition. These positions have resonated with segments of the electorate, contributing to strong polling in several states. Recent figures suggest support sitting at around 27 per cent of the primary vote, compared with approximately 30 per cent for Labor and 23 per cent for the Coalition.

Whether this level of support can be sustained – and whether the party can avoid the internal fractures that have defined parts of its past – remains uncertain. History suggests that rapid growth, combined with internal contradictions, can place significant strain on party unity and long-term stability.

Biography

Callen is a Quandamooka – Nunukul, Goenpul (Snake), and Ngugi (Dolphin) – saltwater person from Minjerribah (North Stradbroke Island). He is of mixed heritage, including Celtic, Scandinavian, German, Polish, Latvian, Spanish, Fijian, and Filipino ancestry.

He has worked as a unionist, political activist, staffer, and campaign organiser for more than 15 years, across local, state, and national levels. He was previously involved with the Queensland Labor Party and later the Greens.

Callen ran as an independent candidate for Redland City Council (Division 2) in the 2020 local government elections, campaigning on the protection of Toondah Harbour and its Ramsar-listed wetlands, as well as advocating for economic renewal in the Cleveland CBD. He later contested the state seat of Oodgeroo as a Greens candidate in the 2024 Queensland election.

His professional background includes roles in retail, business, market research, and media advertising. Since 2022, he has been a co-host of Workers Power on 4ZZZ radio. He is also active in local community organisations and is a member of the Queensland Fabian Society.

Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN

Dear Reader,

Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.

Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.

Join our community of truth-seekers. Please consider donating now via:

PayPal or credit card – just click on the Donate button below

Direct bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

We’ve also set up a GoFundMe as a dedicated reserve fund to help secure the future of our site.
Your support will go directly toward covering essential costs like web hosting renewals and helping us bring new features to life. Every contribution, no matter the size, helps us keep improving and growing.

Thank you for standing with us – we truly couldn’t do this without you.

With gratitude, The AIMN Team