Offensive tirades on race and religion shouldn’t be the norm in Australian politics

Pauline Hanson’s campaign video used a family comedy-style setup to promote a political message. Supposedly inner-city Melbourne progressives revealed that they were secretly conservative. The slogan “Take Victoria Back” framed the election as a struggle to reclaim the state from people the advertisement portrayed as threatening or out of step with its values.

The video copied generously from a campaign commercial released by Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. It included racist images, such as a young African man with a machete and a Middle Eastern-looking man wearing an explosives vest. It also used derogatory depictions of Indians and Indigenous Australians.

The advertisement attracted little attention beyond social media, despite One Nation leading in the polls. That muted reaction may show that Hanson’s repeated race-based stunts no longer shock audiences as they once did. It still matters because political advertising can normalise prejudice while seeking electoral support.

Pauline Hanson is the leader of One Nation, a political party whose campaign was active in the Victorian state election. The article presents the party as a major force in that contest because it was leading in the polls. Hanson’s political influence therefore extends beyond provocative advertising and into measurable electoral support.

Her campaign video used the slogan “Take Victoria Back” and portrayed supposedly progressive Melbourne families as secret conservatives. It borrowed from a Benjamin Netanyahu campaign commercial and included racist stereotypes. The advertisement barely registered beyond social media, but the polling result suggests that limited attention did not necessarily mean limited political impact.

Hanson’s performance matters because she was also moving steadily up rankings of Australia’s preferred prime minister. That combination gives her party and rhetoric national significance. The Victorian result could show whether One Nation’s support translates into votes and whether Hanson’s confrontational style continues to attract political backing.

The article places Hanson and One Nation’s controversial conduct over a 30-year period. Their record includes offensive statements and stunts about race and religion. The long history matters because repeated provocation can change how audiences respond: the article suggests Hanson may have lost some ability to shock after so many incidents.

The latest example was her Victorian election video. It showed supposedly progressive families coming out as conservative and used racist tropes involving African, Middle Eastern, Indian and Indigenous people. Despite the material, the video barely registered beyond social media. Its limited reaction contrasted with One Nation’s political position.

At the time described, One Nation was leading in the polls for the Victorian election. Hanson was also moving steadily up rankings of Australia’s preferred prime minister. These facts show that controversial rhetoric can coexist with political prominence. The party’s electoral performance will indicate whether its support remains strong despite public fatigue with its stunts.

Section 18C of Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act prohibits conduct reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate someone because of race or ethnicity. The Human Rights Commission says it protects people from racial hatred and vilification, but courts require effects that are “profound and serious”, not mere slights.

The case followed Hanson’s response to Mehreen Faruqi’s criticism of the British monarchy. Hanson told the Greens senator that she had benefited from Australia, then ordered her to “pack your bags and piss off back to Pakistan”. In November 2024, a court found Hanson had breached section 18C.

The full federal court later rejected Hanson’s initial appeal. It found the comments offensive, insulting, humiliating and intimidating to Faruqi, migrants, Australians of relatively recent migrant heritage and Muslims. Hanson argued she did not know Faruqi was Muslim, but the judge found that claim “overwhelmingly” improbable.

Section 18D is the safeguard built into the Racial Discrimination Act for forms of expression that serve important public purposes. It exempts artistic works, scientific debate and fair comment on matters of public interest from section 18C. The aim is to prevent racial-hatred rules from automatically criminalising valuable expression.

The protection is conditional. The article says the relevant work, debate or comment must be said or done reasonably and in good faith. This means a person cannot rely on the label “political comment” alone. The way the speech is delivered and the purpose behind it remain important.

Hanson’s case shows why the exception matters. She argued that her comments should be protected, while the courts found them offensive, insulting, humiliating and intimidating. Anne Twomey called parts of the decision contradictory and “muddy”, and said constitutional issues connected with section 18C needed fuller analysis.

Inflammatory political speech can harm people who are targeted because of race, religion or national background. The court found Hanson’s comments affected Faruqi, migrants, Australians of relatively recent migrant heritage and Muslims. Such speech can make public participation feel less safe and weaken the fairness and acceptance that the article associates with modern Australia.

Hanson’s message linked Faruqi’s citizenship, homes and parliamentary job to her Pakistani background. The court treated the instruction to return to Pakistan as offensive, insulting, humiliating and intimidating. The Human Rights Commission says section 18C addresses serious racial hatred and vilification, rather than ordinary minor insults.

The article also warns about institutional damage. When a political leader uses race-based ridicule, it can lower standards for public debate and erode confidence in political institutions. The author argues that protected political communication should require more than juvenile statements about race or nationality, especially from someone aspiring to become prime minister.

The constitutional principle of political communication protects the flow of information between citizens and the representatives they elect to make laws. The article calls free speech a bedrock of Australia’s political system. Hanson argues that section 18C burdens this communication, and the High Court has never ruled on whether the provision is constitutionally valid.

Australia’s legal balance appears in sections 18C and 18D. Section 18C prohibits conduct reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate because of race or ethnicity. Section 18D protects artistic work, scientific debate and fair public-interest comment when expressed reasonably and in good faith. Courts have said section 18C covers profound and serious effects, not mere slights.

Hanson plans to ask the High Court to overturn the ruling, although the article says the appeal would be painful and expensive for Faruqi. Tony Abbott and Anne Twomey support the case reaching the court for different reasons. A ruling could clarify the constitutional limits of 18C.