After being marginalised in the last Parliament, Pauline Hanson is cashing in — both metaphorically and literally — on the debate about establishing an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.
Hanson came into the 47th Parliament as a diminished figure. After early returns suggested her Senate spot was in doubt, Hanson was able to scrape in over Queensland LNP’s Amanda Stoker and minor parties United Australia Party and Legalise Cannabis Australia. Despite boasting an increase in support — which can be attributed to the party’s choice to run candidates in more House of Representative seats — the party actually suffered a nearly 3% swing away from it in Queensland Senate voting.
One factor contributing to One Nation’s shrinking vote was the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Australian politics. The party’s bread-and-butter policy, reducing immigration, was sidelined as Australia closed its borders for much of the previous Parliament. By the time the election came around, unemployment was at a 50-year-low. The pandemic response was a major issue and One Nation’s anti-vaccine mandate, anti-lockdown stances were both unpopular and indistinguishable from other minor parties.
The makeup of the 47th Parliament has imperilled Hanson’s relevance even further. The Senate’s progressive majority combined with the balance of power being held by Greens and the crossbench means that the Labor government has multiple options for passing legislation without having to deal with One Nation.
The Voice to Parliament debate has thrown Hanson a political lifeline, but it’s not one she recognised at first. Soon after being reelected, Hanson laid out her plans for the next Parliament in an interview with Paul Murray on Sky News. She posted the interview to her Facebook with a caption that highlighted the COVID-19 response, multinationals taxation, family law, immigration and energy as her top political issues. Voice to Parliament and Indigenous issues were notably absent.
The first time that Hanson mentioned the Voice to Parliament on social media this term was her July 14 interview with Sky News host Chris Smith. The next day, Hanson put out a media release claiming that the policy would create an “Australian apartheid” and that First Nations peoples were already overrepresented in Parliament, and criticising the lack of detail from the government. Hanson’s audience immediately responded. The July 15 media release got 5300 reactions, more than 1100 comments and 700 shares on Facebook — large numbers, even for Hanson’s sizeable audience. It was clear that this issue was one that played perfectly to One Nation’s base.
It’s no surprise that Hanson, ever the media manipulator, used the first opportunity in Parliament to carry out a race-related protest. Her Acknowledgement of Country walkout garnered an enormous amount of traditional and new media attention. Hanson’s viral post-walkout video statement has been viewed more than 280,000 times on Facebook. In it, she echoes many of the arguments against the Voice to explain why she suddenly opposed the Acknowledgement of Country after having sat through hundreds of them.
Since her first post about the Voice in the middle of July, 15 of the 33 Facebook posts by Hanson have been about either the Voice or the Acknowledgement of Country. In the past week, it’s eight of 12. According to social media analysis tool CrowdTangle, her top two posts during that time have been about the Voice. Hanson and her team saw her audience’s appetite for the topic and leaned into it.
Hanson’s criticism of the Voice to Parliament is a return to home turf. Hanson infamously started off her political career by being disendorsed by the Liberal Party for a letter to a newsletter about Indigenous welfare. Since then, she has scapegoated different groups — First Nations peoples, Asians, Muslims — but always used race politics and bigotry as her core political messages. This passage from her 1996 maiden speech to Parliament could be repurposed verbatim to her campaign against the Voice:
Present governments are encouraging separatism in Australia by providing opportunities, land, moneys and facilities available only to Aboriginals. Along with millions of Australians, I am fed up to the back teeth with the inequalities that are being promoted by the government and paid for by the taxpayer under the assumption that Aboriginals are the most disadvantaged people in Australia. I do not believe that the colour of one’s skin determines whether you are disadvantaged.
Last Friday, Hanson officially staked out her position: “Pauline Hanson’s One Nation will spearhead the campaign for the ‘no’ vote in the coming referendum on an indigenous ‘voice to Parliament’ [sic],” read a media release. Accompanying the release was a link to One Nation’s store, which is already selling a variety of Vote No stickers to cash in on the interest. She boasted to The Daily Telegraph that she had registered 46 web domains for the campaign (Crikey was only able to find two Voice-related domains registered to One Nation).
Making Hanson the face of the “no” vote will likely be a mistake for the campaign. Despite her notoriety, Hanson remains an unpopular and incompetent politician who has failed to grow her party from the fringes, even as other populist parties like United Australia Party have found a footing. An alternate, hypothetical campaign featuring a coalition of people from the left and right of politics without Hanson’s political baggage would likely have a much better chance at defeating the push.
But for Hanson, it’s a gift. The Voice to Parliament referendum will be a national debate about race centring on a complex model that’s vulnerable to scare campaigns. Hanson has already shown she has no interest in good faith debate, falsely labelling a Voice body a “third tier of government” (God forbid she finds out about local government). It will elevate her as one of the few mainstream politicians willing to oppose the popular proposal that came out of the Uluru Statement from the Heart process.
After a close brush with political death, Pauline Hanson is set to become one of the main figures of the 47th Parliament thanks to the Voice to Parliament referendum.
Does Hanson add anything of value to the political debate in this country? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
What a cynical, evil and hateful hypocrite is Pants Down. I note this article argues that she is seeking ‘relevance’, by concocting a hateful racist opposition to common sense. Her ‘apartheid’ claim proves she is an idiot. Does she know what that terms means or how it could be sensibly related to a proposal for an advisory body on indigenous affairs. But the proposal was always going to uncover every racist idiot in Australia. It is fitting that Hanson is one of the first such idiots to come out against common sense and on the side of pure racism.
I’m guessing you don’t have many actual debates with people with whom you don’t agree. Such a spew of bile would quickly terminate any discussion. Oh, sorry – that was your intention? Oh my bad then.
I can’t stand Hanson. But then I think so called welcome to country and smoking ceremonies are farcical and the so called voice to parliament if it ever gets up is divisive rubbish. Mmmm. Maybe Hanson might represent some citizens after all.
I totally agree with your entire comment. Well, I hope Hanson doesn’t represent me. but I do wonder about the wisdom of encouraging “welcome to country” and associated ceremonies. I absolutely think if Aboriginal people wish to pursue their traditions and ceremonies, good luck to them. I just fail to see their relevance to me or my life. I don’t care about Aboriginal place names beyond what we already have. And finally, unless I know the entire intention and detail behind the Voice to Parliament referendum, I will be voting ‘no’.
I totally disagree with you. I like “Welcome to country” ceremonies, and I always do an acknowledgment of country in any presentations I do. I find it useful to remind people whose country this really is.
The relevance to your life is that you are on stolen land.
I can’t accept the premise that a country belongs in perpetuity to one ethnic group, though some ultra-right Europeans might.
It’s more acknowledgement that sovereignty and connection to land were never ceded.
What difference would it make if it were “ceded”?
Look, I’m prepared to support a Voice, or a treaty if that’s what aborigines want – the rest of Australia certainly owes them. But I’m not sure the best way to build support is to accuse the majority of the population of a crime.
The Uluru Statement clearly states that it seeks co-existence and doesn’t make accusations of crime/s by anyone.
I’m referring to “You are on stolen land” that you often hear.
That’s because treaties have yet to be negotiated. Nothing more, nothing less. New Zealand’s Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840.
Having a body (Voice) implemented by the Parliament to consult with prior to deciding on policies, thus promoting effective policies and efficient expenditure of taxes, is a very different thing from a treaty and nothing to do with accusations of criminal activity
Refer to my answer above.
conquered would imply that they resisted.. we don’t like that either..
First Nations did resist their invasions. That is a well established fact, though if you’re an older person (like me) this was not taught in school.
I’m not sure younger generations were taught much either. My millennial son wasn’t.
That is a simple statement of fact. It doesn’t necessarily require you to do anything about it, except perhaps acknowledge the truth
So if I steal your car, how long do I have to keep it for before it becomes mine?
A few generations
Well I strongly disagree with you. My (family’s) land in Ireland was stolen by the English – and around the same time that Australia was being colonised. I don’t see people lining up to help me retake or even recognise my claim to my ancestral lands. And I think this country, or at least a small part of it, belongs to me now. Perhaps you’d be ok vacating whatever it is you live in and giving it over to an Aboriginal person? If not you’re partaking in tokenism.
All over the world lands have changed hands whether through colonisation or spoils of war – or even purchased.
I’m very much in favour of ‘closing the gap’. I am only too happy to help Aboriginal people build something in Australia that will give them an income and provide a living for them. I’m just not overly keen on smoking ceremonies and other rituals which do not and never will have any relevance to me. Nor can I give any credence to Aboriginal culture per se, beyond anything it may mean to them. I do not begrudge them having their own traditions and cultural habits. I have my own and I’m sure many Australians, since we are such a multicultural society, have theirs.
I see you strongly disagree and I’m comfortable with someone having an opposing point of view, but I’m puzzled. What has the voice to parliament got to do with “vacating whatever it is you live in and giving it over to an aboriginal person”? Is that the part that you’re afraid of? Or is there something else?
The Voice is about government having been since the year dot, making decisions relevant to aboriginals without any formal reference to all the ins and outs of the effects those decisions may have on them. The Voice means hearing what they think beforehand. They would have no more special vote in that decision making than they do now. It’s about being heard.
And as for Ireland – that land steal is still causing problems centuries later hey?
The Uluru Statement and Voice aren’t wanting to take anyone’s land. Native Title hasn’t enabled claims over people’s homes and yards as was falsely claimed decades ago when the same lies were doing the rounds.
the same way you felt with all those years of gawd save the queen after you lost your land and took someone elses..
I think the IRA might disagree with you about nobody helping you get your land back
I support your view. It requires a generosity of spirit to recognise the cultural significance of place and country that is embedded in First nations thinking. When I do acknowledgement of country at all the meetings I run I think of the beauty and life giving qualities of the land we live on and I’m happy to respect a culture that has been on this land for 65000 years.
I totally disagree with you and your disagreement. You may like welcome to country ceremonies, but I don’t.
You always do an acknowledgement of country in any presentations that you do.
I wonder if you have ever had the good manners to ask anyone you are presenting to,if they might like to excuse themselves while you present your own views and opinions to what would be a captive audience.
Would you recite passages of the Quran to a Jewish audience jut because you’re presenting to them ?
You find it ” useful remind people who’s country this ” really ” is.
My great grandparents were born here, my grandparents were born here, my parents were born here, I was born here and so were my children and grandchildren. I am an Australian citizen with no other country to go to.
You and your activist ilk who want to shove their aboriginality down everyone’s throats is the very reason I will be voting NO.
There is nothing in these that is seeking to take away your citizenship. The Uluru Statement focuses on co-existence.
Sounds a bit OTT (over the top) to me, Denis. Obviously I/Catoke wouldn’t think of reciting passages of the Quran to a Jewish audience, but we’re not talking religion here. When we lived In Western Qld people were very suspicious of Native Title until they found out more about it and found it wasn’t a threat.I think the young voters coming through now are much more tolerant and accepting than we used to be. I know we are and our kids are much more tolerant and accepting than we were..
I don’t care what you have come to accept. I’m a 6th generation Australian, and as far as I’m concerned, I’m just as aboriginal as any so called aboriginal born since 1955 ( my year of birth ). I will not be condescended to by activists that are clearly far more Caucasian than aboriginal, telling me in a captive audience that I’m the bad guy. This is just the beginning. What’s next. I’m voting no to any more of this condescending crape.
Thinking people are telling you you are the bad guy is purely a product of your imagination. That is not what recognition of history implies
It’s not a “view” or “opinion” to acknowledge that you’re on the traditional lands of the local First Nations people. Just a statement of fact. Why are you so threatened?
I’m not feeling threatened. I’m sick and tired of being condescended to by so called aboriginals who clearly are mixed race and insisting that captive audiences be dressed down for the crimes of others who have gone before me. You blame me for something I didn’t do, I vote no.
How many acknowledgments of country have you actually heard, Denis? I suspect not many.
You don’t get a lecture, you just get told the name of the First Nation or Nations who are the traditional owners, if you didn’t already know it and an acknowledgment the land was never ceded. That’s it. That’s all. There’s no “dressing down”. No mention of “crimes” and the presenter probably isn’t a First Nations member and doesn’t claim to be. They might not even be an Australian citizen. They could be an overseas presenter, touring Australia.
You seem to think it’s some kind of political lecture, and it isn’t at all. It’s a very simple, very short courtesy.
An acknowledgement the land was never ceded is rare (almost unknown, in fact) in my experience of welcome to / acknowledgement of country – mostly in the Top End of the NT. Maybe it’s different where you live?
You must have heard some very weird acknowledgement of country messages. Either that or your imagination is running away with you. If you take it as a dressing down, that’s on you, not on the person speaking it
I like them, too. Just the reminder of how very many different nations there are and were are food for thought for me.
And yes, they are symbolic, a token, if you like, but so is saying sorry after you’ve screwed up and hurt someone. I don’t see any part of the reconciliation process as being any different to that. The nation is simply acknowledging and apologising to the national community it has continuously and constantly hurt for a very long time. I welcome that wholeheartedly.
You don’t let grievances fester and duck conflict in your personal relationships if you’ve got an ounce of emotional intelligence because you know the risk. The national relationship is no different.
Could you explain why the “wisdom” of encouraging welcome to country is questionable?
How dare anyone presume to welcome me to my country.
You are misunderstanding. You are talking about “country” (lower case “c”). Traditional Owners are talking about “Country” (upper case “C”). Two different concepts in the general sense and the legal sense.
This will help you understand what Country (upper case “C”) means – https://www.commonground.org.au/learn/what-is-country
Eye roll
So it is divisive rubbish to institutionalise something we have never done: listen to blackfellas?
NZ is several decades ahead on this. I recall us starting to give our mihi (introduction about who we are and who/what our connections are) and organisationally have powhiri (now mihi whakatau) or welcoming ceremonies involving use of te Reo (maori language), maybe a waiata (song), and definitely kai (food) for organisational meetings etc back in the 90s. It became part of the new syncretic NZ culture and was seen and appreciated by international visitors in particular as distinctly NZ.
So I give my tautoko (support) to acknowledgement of Country and implementation of the Uluru Statement of the Heart.
That being said, I can do without prayers or invocations to imaginary beings in whatever language. As for blowing smoke, well, our politicians are masters in the art.
Yes, you negotiated a treaty a very, very long time ago, and that put you way ahead of us. We only stopped pretending that nobody lived here around 30 years ago.
Hanson is divisive and rubbish. A perfect fit for this brouhaha. In Greek mythology, Cassandra of Troy was fated always to speak the truth and never to be believed. Hanson differs in just two respects
Yes, I find them irrelevant to most venues in which they are carried out. If we stopped doing prayers etc to start meetings then surely these acknowldgements are equally irrelevant. I agree with emem too. If they wish to do them for themsleves that’s fine, but in a couple of organisations I belong to we gave htem away and are brisker, more businesslike and focussed without them.
When schoolchildren roll their eyes during a Welcome to Country or smoking ceremony in the same way we did while singing God Save the Queen or reciting an oath to “honour the flag”, you’ll know an advisory voice to Parliament will just be and will likely not materially affect the vast majority of citizens, even if it slightly improves the plight of those you’ll never meet.
Can’t see a problem myself
The challenge for all of our political parties, and their rusted on influencers, will be to offer an option that does not have the appearance, practical effect or spectre of entrenching a new inequity in “equal” representation, or in “one person one vote of equal value” terms while addressing a prior inequity – a delicate referendum question framing test at the outset which will challenge the ethics and the resolve of many of our elected Parliamentary seat warmers.
As our recent past experience with the LNP’s pre-emptively framed wording of the disastrous Republic referendum question very well illustrated, the devil will be in the equity, quality, procedural clarity and intended outcomes entailed in the question to be set for the Australian community as a whole. In other words, an honest attempt to address the issue and its equitable resolution rather than a politically motivated roadblock or diversionary apparition masquerading as a well informed choice before the community. Anything less than this will invite another failure to address another current day inadequacy/omission/flaw in the Constitution our 19th Century forefathers framed in the mores and social values of the ruling elites of that time. We are not alone in this predicament as the relevance of the US Constitution, predating our own document by more than 100 years, to the challenges of present day American values and societal pressures, illustrates.
There wasn’t the Murdoch press then that keep pushing the no vote with lies and prooaganda!
In the 1967 Referendum 91% voted “Yes”, but 9% voted “No”.
Hanson represents what’s left of this ignorant, racist, toxic rump.
Hanson wasn’t old enough to vote in 1967
I bet you were.
Hansons ‘voice’ will go as far as the media pushes it.