Hanson’s vision is hard to accept, and living that way would be a big ask

Last week, I examined whether One Nation could form a cabinet as capable as Labor’s, a discussion that generated notable engagement despite some misinterpretations of my argument. In this essay, I argued that the core tenets of Hanson’s political vision, as articulated in her National Press Club speech on June 17, fundamentally conflict with Australia’s principles of inclusivity, evidence-based policymaking, and social cohesion. Through a systematic evaluation of her stances on immigration, media policy, social welfare, economics and cultural identity, I will show that Hanson’s proposals threaten to erode essential components of Australia’s democratic and multicultural society.

My personal reaction to Pauline Hanson is one of strong disapproval. Her speech, vocal delivery, and blunt rhetorical style prompted me to reflect on how her communication style might influence perceptions of Australians abroad, particularly among audiences in other English-speaking countries. This initial response highlights the need to carefully examine how her distinctive personality affects both her credibility and the broader reception of her political message.

A careful consideration of Hanson’s communication strategies is necessary to understand the influence of her political vision. Her deliberate use of provocative rhetoric attracts widespread media coverage, ensuring her positions on immigration, multiculturalism, and the Australian media reach a broad audience. Analysing this approach clarifies how her strategies both reinforce her policy priorities and shape national discourse, underscoring the need for critical scrutiny.

1 Let’s start with immigration. It has been the backbone of Australia’s success, as evidenced by numerous studies highlighting its positive impact on economic growth and demographic stability. For example, the Productivity Commission has reported that migration increases Australia’s gross domestic product and helps address skills shortages (Productivity Commission, 2016). Without ongoing immigration, Australia would face a weaker country and economy, and that is my main objection to Pauline Hanson’s view. Without it, we have no future. Whereas according to Hanson:

“We cannot be a multicultural society. We are a multiracial society, but we must be monocultural. Australians must live under the one cultural umbrella.”

Hanson appears to argue that a multiracial society is detrimental to Australia, contending that a monocultural model would provide greater national unity and clearer shared values. This perspective assumes that cultural homogeneity offers a foundation for social harmony and stability.

However, historical and sociological research demonstrates that multiculturalism has been integral to the nation’s development and social cohesion. For instance, studies such as Markus (2018) highlight that multicultural policies have played a pivotal role in integrating immigrant communities, thereby enhancing mutual respect and reducing instances of ethnic conflict.

Additionally, the Australian Human Rights Commission (2015) found that communities with higher levels of cultural diversity report greater social trust and civic engagement. Therefore, while proponents of monoculturalism may claim it simplifies social integration and reduces cultural tensions, substantial evidence indicates that blending diverse backgrounds has enriched Australian society through cultural exchange and economic growth, as seen in immigrants’ significant contributions to entrepreneurship, innovation, and workforce participation. Moreover, such monocultural approaches risk marginalising minority groups and ignoring empirical evidence that cultural diversity contributes positively to national identity. Advocating for monoculturalism also raises concerns about the exclusionary implications of her policy, which may perpetuate systemic racism and undermine Australia’s commitment to inclusivity.

2 Then she proposed eliminating the ABC, an organisation that surveys such as Roy Morgan (2022) have consistently found to be the most trusted news service in Australia. Hanson envisions it operating instead as a paid subscription service accessible only to residents of metropolitan areas.

She also proposed the complete abolition of the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), a network that provides multilingual and multicultural programming unmatched by any commercial broadcaster. The SBS has played a vital role in serving culturally diverse audiences across Australia, which emphasises its contribution to social inclusion and public service media. Removing such services would likely generate significant public opposition, given their established base of support among a diverse array of viewers.

3 Under a Hanson government, paid parental leave would be wound back, long-term abortions would be disallowed, and industrial relations laws overhauled to make it easier for small businesses to terminate underperforming employees. These proposed changes to social policy not only have significant implications for a wide range of voters but also exemplify how Hanson’s platform could undermine inclusivity and social cohesion, which are central concerns in my critique of her broader political vision.

4 She savaged transgender rights, pledging to sack Australia’s sex discrimination commissioner and claiming “almost every instrument of government [is] dedicated to a transgender ideology which seeks to redefine humanity.” I wondered what she might do to gays, even when her chief of staff is of that persuasion. Not many votes in this lot, so why bother?

“A lmost every instrument of government [is] dedicated to a transgender ideology which seeks to redefine humanity,” she said, and went on to say she would sack the sex discrimination commissioner. That will win a few votes.

5 She promised to address the cost-of-living crisis and pledged to increase spending to address homelessness. Apparently, she has answers that others don’t. I wondered why, if the problem was that acute, she wouldn’t pass on the wisdom of her knowledge to Labor now.

6 When asked about her abortion policy, Hanson said too many pregnancies were terminated in Australia, calling for the procedure to be banned after 20 weeks. Exemptions would be in place to protect the mother’s health.

7 When the journalists present were given the opportunity to ask questions, she countered with “The Labor leader had ‘lied to become elected”. “The public are sick to the back teeth with these lies.” I could only think that her speech was very Trumpish in its presentation. No lies. Ummm.

8 Suggest you read this for a greater understanding of how social media works: “Why the power of Press Club addresses is in the clips posted on social media afterwards.”

9 Of course, she would give our traditional “Welcome to country” the flick without realising the traditional place and potential our indigenous folk have in our country. Think tourism, for example.

When asked by a Guardian reporter how her daughter, Lee Hanson, who is employed as a senior adviser to New South Wales One Nation senator Sean Bell, despite living and working in Tasmania, she replied with a dressing-down. “I didn’t get her that job. She got the job on her own merits by someone who actually wanted to employ her,” Hanson said.

Then she responded firmly to Guardian journalist Sarah Martin, saying she would be banned from any future press conference and would refuse any interview requests. She also accused Martin of having an “obsession” with her, her party and Gina Rinehart.

“Honestly you never give up,” Hanson said. “You will put out lies about me, well, I’ve had enough of that.”

(ABC’s Annabel Crabb wrote that Senator Hanson went to the National Press Club looking for a clash with journalists, and got at least one.)

She also shared her opinion that the transition to renewables is being led by the federal government and business leaders, including Andrew Forrest. Hanson said that environmental rules and efforts to cut carbon emissions should not be allowed to “throttle” the economy.

“We will never be able to do without coal and gas,” she said.

“We should encourage the investment in them and provide power to homes and business, as we once did, at the world’s cheapest price.”

Attacking Labor for changes to the 50% capital gains tax discount and negative gearing, announced in last month’s federal budget, Hanson said the reforms would punish ambitious and aspirational young people. I thought that was a stretch. How many young people are buying houses and shares? Unless the money is coming from the parents.

She described Jim Chalmers’ defence of the plans as “pathetic”. I would question whether she has the qualifications to make such statements.

“The difference between Albanese, Chalmers and me is that I actually ran a small business.” A fish and chip shop. They have earned their income by working for the government, taking their salary from the taxpayer.” Correct by running a trillion-dollar business.

Hanson’s speech coincided with a period when One Nation led the major parties in recent opinion polls, and she surpassed Albanese as the preferred prime minister in last week’s Newspoll. These developments underscore the contemporary relevance and potential influence of her political vision, thereby reinforcing the significance of critically analysing her message within the current political context.

Hanson has flirted with a move back to the lower house at the 2028 poll, and the party has begun allocating portfolios to opposition or government roles.

She criticised the federal public service for being incompetent and promised that a One Nation government would direct bureaucrats on how to implement policies.

Hanson accused the media of being complicit in silencing average voters and shutting down debate. She also claimed she was a known quantity who remained outside the political establishment, despite being re-elected in 2016.

She accused the media of double standards and petty attacks, of missing the party’s re-emergence and its role in speaking for disgruntled voters:

“Australians aren’t buying this crap from the political establishment and its media supporters any more,” she said.

On transgender rights, she claimed without evidence that schoolchildren were having dangerous ideology “imposed” on them, even likening trans awareness to militant Islam.

Asked if Australia was still at risk of being swamped by Muslim migration, as she claimed in 2016, Hanson said: “Not if I have anything to do with it.”

In summary, the current economic climate, as described by Alan Kohler (ABC), creates conditions conducive to rising support for One Nation, while Patricia Karvelas points to increasing challenges for Labor. Together, these developments frame Hanson’s speech as both a reflection of public anxieties and a catalyst for debate about Australia’s democratic foundations. Synthesising the analysis presented throughout this essay, it becomes clear that Hanson’s rhetoric and policy proposals risk undermining the principles of inclusivity, evidence-based governance, and social cohesion that underpin Australian society. Therefore, a thorough and critical evaluation of her vision is crucial for understanding and responding to the broader challenges currently confronting Australian politics.

My thought for the day

I feel people on the right of politics in Australia show an insensitivity to the common good that goes beyond any thoughtful examination. They have hate on their lips and their hate starts with the beginning of a smile.

Also by John Lord

Ongoing political promises continue to attract significant public scrutiny