Populism in Australia

Hello! My name is Courtney and I am a Communication major at the University of New Hampshire. My CMN 772 class is covering the concept of populism in several countries around the world, This blog will follow the current events surrounding populism in Austrlian politics!

[court772]

Robert Murdoch: NewsCorp

Robert Murdoch is known as an “Australian-born American businessman, media tycoon, and investor” (Wikipedia) whose political opinions manifest themselves through his media company, NewsCorp. Murdoch’s reputation and memorable actions are being addressed in Australia currently, as he is in his late 90s and has made the decision to leave his position as head owner of NewsCorp. The question on every Australian’s mind now is - Who will take over, out of his six children and four marriages? (CNN). The question sparks an interest of who will continue incorporating the populist narrative into all programs owned by NewsCorp. 

Murdoch started a small Australian family newspaper when he was 34, The Australian. After seeing the success of this newspaper, he began to look into business investments in other nations, specifically the United States and the United Kingdom. There, he acquired FOX news programs and The Sun. Furthermore, the conglomerate of NewsCorp controlled the New York Post, Wall Street Journal, Fox, and MySpace. His presence in cable, film, television, internet, satellite, sports, and publishing greatly increased as he crossed borders, but the majority of his support was in Australia. Each month, nearly two out of three Australians consume its [NewsCorp] media (Georgetown). Murdoch was “determined to exercise his political viewpoints” in his media outlet and in doing so, created the most powerful, right-wing, conservative media empire in history (CNN). Due to his worldwide extension of the NewsCorp community, he is now considered one of the world’s most influential populist media mogul (Populism Studies), leading him to also be one of the most controversial. To involve politics in NewsCorp domains as much as possible, Murdoch took vertical control over the company to function as a political weapon. That way, it will “expand its holdings through favors, leading to a larger audience shares, which in turn expands its political clout, creating a cycle of political influence” (Populism Studies). 

According to our learnings in class, there are more than a few comparisons between political populist actors and Robert Murdoch himself. Specifically, his use of scandals categorizes him as a populist actor himself. Murdoch strictly follows what he calls the “Fours of Journalism” which are a scandal, scare headlines, sex, and sensation (Populism Studies). One of the largest scandals created by his multiple media platforms was the news international phone-hacking scandal. Murdoch was accused of hacking phones, police bribery, and more for the pursuit of certain stories (Washington Post). Most of these hacks were to gain political information. Mudde and Kaltwasser attribute to the same concept of how populists tend to focus on scandals and create a crisis out of social and political issues. These populist actors could not do so without a platform though, as Mudde and Kaltwasser state, “Often unintentionally helped by sensationalist media…” populist actors frame all issues as crises that need to be solved (Mudde and Kaltwasser, 106).  Murdoch supported this tactic by giving populist actors air time, such as Trump on FOX News. He served, and still serves for a bit longer, as a media mogul who makes savage, opinion-based attacks through his 13.50 billion-dollar company.

[court772]

Article Review: Between Conflation and Denial - The Politics of Climate Change in Australia

Between Conflation and Denial - The Politics of Climate Change in Australia by Peter Tangney, a researcher focused on the politics of objectivity and influence in democratic governance (Tangney), analyzes the use of climate expert advice and science in politics. The overall ruling theme of Tangney’s work is that Australian politicians and scientists are severely struggling in using evidence-based policy to create changes to prevent climate change. Tangney asks his readers to look through the eyes of conservatives, who believe in climate change but will not enforce policy due to the way it is being described by liberal politicians. The main issue with how it is being described is through the rhetorical tactics used by politicians yet fueled by evidence from scientists. Tangney argues that to stop conservatives from blocking policy-making, politicians need a pragmatic reframing of the policy problems. Currently, there are three levels of research adaptation; instrumental, political, and conceptual. A combination of all three allows for a larger possibility of policy support and implementation. The overall goal of this academic article is to resolve the “ongoing tension between climate science being used in politics” for (1) climate change being a significant problem needing an urgent solution and (2) convincing policy-makers by directly informing them with evidence-based research (Tangney).

This academic article creates a strong connection between the rhetorics and ideology of politics versus the scientific reality of cultural and environmental issues in Australia. The mediatization of politics (Moffitt) and general public speaking styles of populists, liberals, and other government figures, is the largest influence on the progress of policies. As mentioned several times in class before, populists specifically, aim to fight for the general public and the will of the people (Muddle). Therefore, Tangney attributes one of the non-persuasive rhetorical techniques to populists. The rhetorical technique that he recommends avoiding in the discussion of climate change is a general speaking about how climate change is a problem that needs to be urgently solved (Tangney). This statement is too general, and although it will gain attention and support from the general public of Australia, no official policy or changes will be made. However, from studying the history of populism, this will be a hard transition as populists’ style and ideological statements are huge factors that contribute to their public success. Instead, Tangney suggests that these politicians use instrumental techniques to convince policy-makers and supporters to see the true reality of climate change. Instrumental techniques are directly informing society of the issue at hand with clear, in-depth science-based research. Although it may be difficult to understand, it is necessary.

For example, Malcolm Turnbull, the 29th Prime Minister of Australia (Biography), was known for his “various engagements” with climate change during his serving time. As Tangney evaluates his rhetorical actions and their outcomes, it is clear how dangerous the climate change policy-making can be to a politician and the party supporting them. Turnbull ended up losing his leadership of the Liberal party because his active policy-making tendencies (specifically the CPRS Bill) went against the senior Liberal MP and senators. The outcome resulted in Turnbull being challenged by Tony Abbott, who was selected for his climate change beliefs by the senior Liberal MP and senators that disliked Turnbull’s rhetorical actions.

I believe that this academic article was well-crafted and impactful for the topic is focused on. Not only did Tangeny analyze the connection between climate change, research, and politics, he provided solutions for all parties involved. For researchers and scientists, he recommended that they follow the “deficit model” in which they “assume that any difficulties in science communication arise from one or more other deficiencies, and not from how the science is communicated” (Tangeny). My one critique is the reality of these rhetorical tactics being implemented in a time frame that is slowly dying (The Guardian). The ideas could be revolutionary for the climate of Australia, yet the information seems to lie on a small scale as Tangeny does not have much connection to the politics of Australia.

[court772]

Bob Katter & His Surprising Statements ABC

Bob Katter, born May 22nd, 1945, currently is an active member of the Australian House of Representatives ever since 1993. Katter began his working career as a laborer, insurance worker, and small mining and cattle jobs until he decided to become active in Australian politics (Bob Katter). He began his political career as a member of the Country party, soon to become the minister of both Northern Development and Aboriginal/Islanders affairs and many more. In 2001, Katter resigned from the House of Representatives in order to claim himself as independent in the coming elections. In 2011, Katter created his national party, labeled Katter’s Australian Party, which focused intensely on his views about agriculture. From 2016 to the present, Katter is back serving in the House of Representatives (Katter’s Australian Party). Populist scientists label Katter as a populist due to his political style rather than solely his beliefs. This talk of populist style is repetitive in Australia’s form of government. Similar to populist scientists’ ideas about Australian populists, Judas also states in his work that populism is a “political logic - a way of thinking about politics” (Judas 1).

Additionally,  Muddle and Kaltwasser provide another basic attribute attaining to populist actors, despite whether the politician decides to take a more stylistic approach or direct approach. Muddle and Kaltwasser state, “Populism…considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonist camps..” (Kaltwasser 6). In the example of Bob Katter, he views the antagonists, also known as the opposing elites, as cheap foreigners and gay couples, depending on which controversy Katter decides to dive into that day. His idea of the common people is the “new working class” as he titles them (Murphy). The new working class consists of individuals working in the environmental industry in Northern Australia, which resides with Katter’s upbringing. However, he does not support the “cheap foreigners” who come to Australia on temporary migration programs to work in these positions. Katter has accused companies of lying about profits and ratings in order to obtain foreign workers and states that they are not needed. His reasoning reflects a common ideology seen in populism, that the politician should fight for the Australian people and only the Australian people. In this context, Katter responds to the idea of more foreign workers with the following question to the press, “If the profits are going to go overseas and now the wages are going to go overseas, well what the hell do Australians get? (The West Australian).

Katter is most known for his unusual responses and dramatic statements regarding social issues. A few of his most well-known experiences are; denying Muslims from the country of Australia, resisted to vote yes to gay marriage, publicly admitting a list of things he would rather do than have a gay member on his team, offer Australian children to be armed for the war against Ukraine and China, and releasing an ad campaign about shooting components after the deadly Orlando, FL massacre (QuotePark). All of these are expressed through his presence on Australia’s TV news networks. He received a mass amount of public attention from the media recently on his controversial statement about arming students in schools, as young as age thirteen, for the safety of Australian from Ukraine and China. The exact quote receiving the majority of attention is as follows, “Mr. Katter claims that arming children would give them confidence and a sense of responsibility” (Gould). As media advances in countries around the world and attention is shifted towards interesting political topics rather than simply important ones, Katter takes the gold home with earning any sort of attention from the Australian people. 

[court772]

Social Movements & Protests In Australia: Infographic

[court772]

The Coup Capital: Infographic 

[court772]

Port Arthur: The Massacre that Forever Changed Gun Laws

In the Spring of 1996, a man in his late 20s committed a killing spree, murdering a total of 35 people and severely injuring at least 18 more in the small, tourist town of Port Arthur in Tasmania, Australia. Martin Bryant, the 28-year-old, opened fire upon a couple visiting the Seascape guesthouse, 22 individuals eating in a restaurant, two bus drivers and passengers, and multiple bystanders along the way. He used an AR-15 rifle with a 30-shot magazine and then switched it out for a semi-automatic .308 rifle that was waiting in his car (Wahlquist). Bryant then returned to the Seascape guesthouse and conducted an act of arson, and was soon captured by police. After admitting responsibility to the 35 murders, he received a life sentence with no possible release (History.com). The massacre shocked the people of Australia and encouraged protest for tighter gun control laws.

The Constitution of Australia does not give the national government (direct) power to establish gun laws. All gun laws are regulated by the local State and Territory authorities, who are educated through several guiding legislations groups, such as The National Firearms Agreement of 1996, National Firearms Trafficking Policy Agreement of 2002, and the National Handgun Agreement of 2002. After the 1996 massacre, Prime Minister John Howard did his best to encourage state and territory authorities to change gun laws by new changes to The National Firearms Agreement of 1996. Some political leaders and associates assumed that Howard only took such fast action because the next election was “far-off” and any pro-gun backlash would not affect him later on (Peters).

The basic premise of the new gun laws implemented by The National Firearms Agreement of 1996 is that of the following; the regulation of guns is restricted, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law, ownership of guns must be accompanied by a license with genuine reason, and carrying guns openly or concealed is prohibited. More specifically, there is a strict prohibition of automatic weapons and semiautomatic weapons unless there are exceptional circumstances. Private possession of handguns is only permitted to a few, with stringent conditions, and possession of rifles and shotguns are strictly regulated by law with licensing laws (Gun Policy).

Australia has received praise for the success of its gun laws. In 1979 and 1980, Australians were witnessing mass quantities of suicides, in which 32% were assisted by firearms. Also noted was the statistic behind homicides, where 41% included the use of a firearm. While comparing these statistics to more recent years, say 2013, there is an obvious decline in the use of firearms for danger. The 32% for suicides decreased to 6%, and the 41% in homicides decreased to 10% (Ramchand, 2021). From the view of the republic based party, the new 1996 gun laws also succeed by allowing gun owners to participate in a “buy-back” program where any guns that were banned in the documentation were redeemable for fair value (Ludwig 15).

From the social movement directly following the massacre of 1996 to the 12-day process of developing the NFA, all the actions taken are considered acts of populism (Muddle and Kaltwasser 46). Specifically, because they reflect the will of the people (Muddle and Kaltwasser 4). In this case, the will of the pure public is to not face another massacre supplied by ammunition again and have to nationally mourn. Even the claim of “personal protection” does not justify owning a gun, according to the Australian Parliament. The other homogenous group existing in this seemingly one-sided debate is hunters. In a country with such a vast wildlife population and large unoccupied land mass, hunters were asked to turn in their guns unless for extreme measures. This group of “elites” appeared only after the NFA was published and well into use.

Australia’s gun control laws are highly admired by other countries, especially the United States, and serve as the “Golden Global Standard” (The Guardian). The Australian Parliament and citizens are extremely proud of the action that both parties have taken on the stance, putting life above all.

[court772]

Collage: Higgins Protest

The purpose and motivation behind the self-made collage I titled Higgins Protest, is the recent disruption of the Australian Parliament system due to several rape accusations against older, male members. The first of accusations was stated by Brittany Higgins, a former Assistant Media Adviser for the Parliament of Australia (AU Linked In). Higgins’ filed a police report in 2019 saying that she was raped in the ‘safest building in Australia’ by a male coworker in the ministerial wing of the Parliament House (The Guardian). The photos pictured in the collage are from the March 15th, 2021 protest.

This is not Australia’s first legal case regarding a predominately wealthy, white male of power taking sexual advantage of co-working women. Nationwide, sexual assault cases have increased by 30% from 2010 to 2018, and that does not include those that go unreported (AIHW). The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare also states that “the majority of assault offenders recorded were male (97%)...” (AIHW).

As seen in the collage, protestors took to the stage to fight against the Parliament and their unjustified actions. According to Kasswalter and Muddle, a social movement is one of the three types of populism mobilization. Although there is a lack of access to make an actual decision, the protests, demonstrations, and rallies do bring change to social issues that have been enduring over time (Kasswater and Muddle). Social movements can manifest themselves as the “old-style” rally or gain support online, especially during the time of Covid. As Bongiorno notes about Australia, “The populist surge of the recent past…have been associated with old-style rallies and march as much as with Twitter” (Bongiorno 19). In the case of the Higgins Protest and also seen in the collage, the majority of the protests occurred in person with masks and other safety precautions in place. However, the public interest sparked when Janine Hendry, an Australian designer, and entrepreneur, tweeted her honest thoughts on getting women to surround the capital and asked for realistic opinions on it.

Source Creators:

Sydney Morning Herald

Republic World

TRT World

The Washington Post

BBC

The New Indian Express

[court772]

Pauline Hanson slammed for Burqa Stunt

Pauline Hanson Profile: A Controversial Populist Leader

Pauline Hanson was born and raised in Queensland, Australia, growing up in a larger family which led her to create a large family as well. Hanson had four children while running a small local business before her husband and she divorced. Her first involvement in the Australian political scene came shortly after, and consisted of joining the Liberal Party in 1995. However, this membership was short-lived due to Hanson’s “strongly-worded statements” on race and immigration, which led to her being kicked out of the Liberal Party in 1996 (Brittanica).

Directly following her release from the Liberal Party in 1966, Hanson ran as a far-right independent to be a member of Parliament and was successful (Parliament of Australia). As John B. Judis claims, populism is not refined to liberals, republicans, left-wings, or right-wing members (Judis 1). Pauline Hanson is an ideal example of this as she jumps from one political party to another, yet maintains her populist standpoint.

Once Hanson became fully immersed in Parliament, the people of Australia began to notice her drastic beliefs expressed through her maiden speeches. These beliefs began as strong racial assumptions, such as the concept that Asians and Aboriginals were to blame for the economic and cultural suffering of Australia (Brittanica). From this point onwards, Hanson’s accusations began to grow stronger and more racist than ever before and were expressed through her new political party, One Nation.  Eventually, the public’s political disinterest in Hanson caused her to plan to relocate to the United Kingdom to become a motivational speaker. However, this plan did not follow through and Hanson returned to Australian politics and was elected for the Australian Senate, where she continues to make controversial points today (Credo).

Following the minimalistic definition provided by Cas Muddle and Cristobal Kaltwasser, stating “Populism is a thin-centered ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogenous and antagonist campus, ‘the pure people versus the elite’ and should reflect the will of the people” (Kaltwasser 6), Pauline Hanson clearly distinguishes her two homogenous and antagonist camps. Hanson’s beliefs and statements portray her xenophobia towards several culturally and racially different groups. As her political career has progressed for almost 20 years now, her xenophobia tactics have been targeted at different groups, or “elite groups.” At the beginning of her political career, she targeted the Aboriginal people for being lazy, using excuses, responsible for the division of Australia (Marr). Next, she targeted immigrating Asians for taking over the country, making several references to their appearance. Lastly and more current, Hanson targeted the Muslim people, in hopes to ban them from the nation because “Islam is a disease that needs to be vaccinated against’ (Remeikis). Therefore, the pure people in Hanson’s eyes are those of white descent, born and raised in Australia, who have a will to keep foreigners out.

For example, for Hanson to distinguish herself from those of Muslim descent, she recently dressed in a full burqa in a 2017 Parliamentary session. As other Parliament members were utterly shocked and the nation showed backlash, Hanson continued to make comments such as “I’m quite happy to remove this because it is not what belongs…” (McKirdy). After removing the burqa, she refers to herself as the average-looking Australian who belongs (McKirdy). Although Pauline Hanson’s specific “elite group” has changed during different eras of her political career, the one theme remains the same; race and ethnicity.

Pauline Hansons’s media presence is most seen on twitter. Although she does not tweet as often as other politicans, say Donald Trump, she is very active in re-tweeting and drawing attention to press releases and general confusion of Australian politics. Interestly enough, her most viewed tweets consist of a segment called “Pauline Hanson Please Explain.” These short political documentary-comedies are presented on all of her media platforms, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, however receive most of their attention on Twitter. The two to three minute videos use cartoon characters to easily explain central topics that Hanson has strong beliefs on. Episodes range from teaching society how to cook pork, National Australia Day, the Australian Broadcasting Newwork, lying politicans and many more (Twitter.com). The Austrlian society views these as either information segments, or complete memes. Some may argue that this style of work attracts those that would be assumed to support a populist leader because the easy-to-understand videos are intended to be the voice of the average people, rather than the voice of a politicain explaining a concept to a person of lesser equal. This idea reinforced Cas and Kaltwasser’s concept of the importance of being the “vox populi” for any and all supporters (Cas and Kaltwasser 62). In a few episodes of Pauline Hanson Please Explain, Pauline goes against expert advice and draws upon “anti-intellectualism, also mentioned by Cas and Kaltwasser, which reflects the traits of a populist leader.

[court772]

Australia’s Offshore Refugee Policy Has Failed

The Problems within Australia’s Refugee and Asylum Seeker Policy

Beginning in 2013, Australia has strictly followed cruel laws that allow for the mistreatment and detention of refugees and asylum seekers looking for help. Australia’s government has housed them in obvious detention centers where they are mistreated, traumatized, and abused. The victims consist of families, individual men and women, and young children. These victims suffer from mental and physical health, landing many in hospitals, where they view that quality of life as better than in the detention centers. According to Thanush Selvarasa and several others, “Many of our friends lost their lives because of this cruelty. I myself tried to kill myself twice.” (Human Rights Watch).

Settlement Servies International’s research shows that the majority of refugees who flee to Australia come from the following countries: Iraq, Congo, Myanmar, Syria, and Afghanistan. Due to the high numbers of individuals and families coming from these countries, they are typically sent to offshore locations meant directly for refugees and asylum seekers. Australia’s government frames these islands as “Offshore processing locations” and “The Pacific Solution’ that promise temporary safety and nourishment until a more permanent housing situation can be found on the mainland (UNSW). However, the reality of these island locations is viewed very differently through the refugees who are placed there and those that witness the traumatic effects it has on people. According to those, the term “detention camps” is much more fitting based on the treatment conducted by officers.

The International Standards On Immigration Detention and Non-Custodial Measures states that “immigration detention shall not be used as punishment, but rather should be an exceptional measure of last resort to carry out a legitimate aim” (IOM). However, in 1992, the Keating Government introduced the Migration Amendment Act. This act was intended to be a temporary solution, however, when the act came into full effect in 1994, it was modified to be applied to all “unlawful” citizens (Parliament of Australia).

The Australian Labor Party of 2007 led by Kevin Rudd claimed to implement significant changes to the detention centers. Once elected, Rudd did show attempts to fix the treatment of refugees and lower the number of offshore locations, yet their time in the centers continued to mentally affect them Parliament of Australia).

Following Rudd’s time in office, the new Prime Minister Julia Gillard promised to implement more offshore islands for immigration detention to avoid overcrowdedness. Gillard did enforce several mandatory assessments of these islands, leading to a small decrease in mistreatment. However, the larger issue of Australian Refugees and Asylum Laws remains relatively the same (Parliament of Australia).

The social advocates that demand change are simply the Australian people. This past summer, over 100 refugee advocates protested outside a Brisbane detention center. In this specific detention center, BITA, over 100 men have been trapped inside for years with no answers. Protesters insist that legal discussion needs to take place to evaluate the reality of the refugee laws, and believe that social protesting will bring attention to that (Australian Broadcasting System). A spark in social protesting also occurred after a well-known, wealthy, athlete Novak Djokovic was released from his detainment center with a canceled visa, due to COVID reasons (Zivardar).

The most important argument that results from all of the events, personal testimonies, and social protests, is that the Australian government needs to re-evaluate its legislation and remove all refugees from the harmful locations, on and offshore. Politicians have somewhat acknowledged the policy and made promises to change it, but the repeating trend shows that change rarely ever happens.

[court772]

Australia Profile - BBC 

                                     Overview of Media Landscape 

Some of the most powerful media companies in Australia are the Fairfax Nine Network, Seven Network, and Network Ten. Streaming services such as Netflix and Stan also dominate. ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) is responsible for radio broadcasting. Popular newspapers are as follows; The Australia, The Canberra Times, etc. These are based on location and geographic characteristics (Dennis, 1). The leading social media platforms as of 2021 (in chronological order) are Instagram, Facebook, Pinterest, and Google. Runner-ups include Twitter, Yubo, and Kik (Statistia 2021). The most powerful, nonprofit, media industry overall in Australia is the Australia Broadcasting Corporation, more commonly known as ABC. According to Gabor and Tiffen, who study differences and similarities between the role of politics and media in Australia and the U.K., ABC is the most trusted news source in Australia. Due to its government origin, it does not contain any form of advertisement (Gabor and Tiffen, 2018, 4).

A National Broadband Network initiative was put into place to be completed by 2020, which promised to “provide consumers with faster broadband connections” (ACCC 2017). As of 2008, at least two-thirds of households have internet connections. Many rural areas that struggle with connection have been falsely promised outstanding technology that usually gets revoked in the first week or so (Statistia 2021).

Roughly 17.9 million smartphones live in Australia. Besides communication, they are most commonly used for taking photos, news, shopping, fitness, and more (Redsearch 2021). To find news on mobile devices, the smartphone is the last option voted by the public, after computers and tablets (Reuter’s Institue, 2017, 116.) The weekly use report indicates that most citizens get their news from online (74%), social media (46%), and television (63%) (Reuter’s Institute, 2017, 116).

According to 2018 and 2019 global research published for the Edelman Trust Barometer, Australia’s government and media are “distrusted” by the majority of the country. In 2018, they were ranked number 40 out of 49, which is nearing the neutral category. In 2019, their ranking moved up to 48, yet there was still not enough trust to push them into the neutral category (Edelman, 2019, 7).

                                  Press Freedom and Journalism 

Pauline Hanson, a controversial populist actor in Australia, is most active on Twitter and Instagram. Although Twitter does not fall in the top six social media apps sued by society, it is often viewed as most efficient for politicians because of the word count. She uses Twitter to communicate laws and policy changes that affect her opinions to the general public. She often retweets and creates her own political cartoons to explain harder concepts. On Twitter, she has 80.1k followers and 58.4k on Instagram (Twitter and Instagram). Overall, the social media platforms and individual posts on these platforms are similar to those of the United States.

The legal protections that exist regarding the freedom of information, opinion, and expression fall underneath ICCPR Article 19. The three elements of Article 19 summarize the ability to hold opinions without interference and seek information through media of choice, with exceptions of national security and respect of other rights (AHRC 2022). According to Freedom House, Australia is rated a ¾ for free and independent media (Freedom House 2021). However, Reporters Without Borders, finds that Australian investigative journalists are in danger. Federal police raids have been happening more than ever before under the reasoning of government security (RSF 2022).

Australia used to be referred to as the “Asia-Pacific regional model” for freedom of the press. However, major changes in press and journalism freedom have occurred between 2001 and 2005. In 2001, a journal was released containing freedom rights issues that continue today. The freedom rights issues consisted of “pursuit and protection of whistleblowers, the concentration of media ownership, and laws that criminalize journalism” among many others (Murphy 2021, 1). ) Now, as of 2021, over 88% of Australian journalists feel threatened at work (Murphy 2021, 1).

Over the past recent years, many non-profit organizations and websites have shed light on the physical assault against Australian journalists and consistent threats that are transforming the field into an “unsafe work environment” (Murphy 2021, 1). According to Murphy, politicians are responsible for the abuse directed towards writers on social media platforms. Cyber abuse also turned into a reality when police raids began (Murphy 2021, 1).

[court772]

Pauline Hanson, Australia’s Ultimate Populist 

 Political Landscape of Australia

                                        A Constitutional Monarchy

Australia is currently a Constitutional Monarchy. This means that a ruling monarch, located in England and labeled as the Queen, oversees the constitutional government which is located in Australia. Within the constitutional government, the order of highest importance is as follows; Governor-general, Federal Executive Branch (Prime Minister), Judicial Branch, and Legislative Branch (Parliament of Australia). This political system has lasted since 1901 when a member of British parliament visited the land and returned home to assess the idea of including them underneath the Queen’s monarchy (History.com)

In recent years, one of the largest political system issues facing Australia is their inability to keep a prime minister for a whole term. The prime minister faces a wide range of freedom, without an overwhelming amount of constitutional amendments that would limit their responsibilities. Prime ministers are also elected by the Members of Parliament, which the voters have previously selected. Therefore, since 2007, prime ministers have been challenged out of their position due to their assigned political party disagreeing with their recent decisions. The turnover is conducted much quicker than say an impeachment, and the legislative members of the same party select a new leader (Madden 1). A recent summary of the change of prime ministers from the years 2007-2021 is as follows; Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull, and now, Scott Morrison (Prime Ministers).

                                      History of Populism In Australia

Australia populism, according to Kaltwasser from The Oxford Handbook of Populism, aligns with Otsiguy’s definition of populism rather than Mudde’s definition. Ostiguy claims populism as a “performative style that revolves around the flaunting of the low” (Kaltwasser 122). Australian populism does not highlight the ideological aspect as Mudde describes in his definition, and is not typically found in designated political parties. Instead, specific populist leaders are commonly identified and still may not complete every aspect of the populist definition. The specific populist leaders are identified among a scale of populism, ranging from left-wing populism to right-wing. Interestingly enough, almost all acts of populism arise out of Queensland, Australia. Experts predict this is due to the sense of exceptionalism and nationalism in the area, combined with the congenial environment of low-income families and non-English speakers.

A small sense of Australian populism was noticed in the 1930s by Prime Minister Robert Menzies, during an economic depression in the country. In this time, he appealed to the “forgotten people” among all those struggling (Kaltwasser 123). Roughly six decades later, Pauline Hanson became the most-talked-about populist in Australia to this day. Hanson belongs to the right-wing political party, in which her beliefs further her position to be labeled as a radical. Her ideas and beliefs consist of racist and insensitive cultural policies. Hanson ruled as a top leader of One Nation, a radical right-wing party. She took a short hiatus from politics due to continuing media attacks, yet returned to the Senate stage in 2016.

Following Hanson’s initial populist movement was the introduction of Bob Katter, an unidentified left or right-wing politician, in 2010. Katter’s beliefs differed drastically from those of Hanson. As he served as a former National Parliament Member, his “ideological position mixes economic protectionism - particularly for agriculture industries - with social conservatism…” (Kaltwasser 124). However, Katter was notorious for sly comments that were considered “politically incorrect outbursts” (Kaltwasser 125). These outbursts contained disapproval of the LGBTQ+ community and racist comments towards the Asian population.

Most recently, Clive Palmer, creator of the Palmer United Party, identified himself as a left-wing populist whose ideology was based on one singular idea. Palmer stood against the separate parties falling underneath the Australian government and rather introduced that “Australians need to come together, provide leadership, and grow the economy” (Kaltwasser 125). His media presence consists of bizarre, unprofessional videos that surface online.

                                            Challenges to Rights

The most prevalent civil and human rights issue currently occurring in Australia is domestic violence against women and children (U.S. Department of State). There is also clear discrimination against those of Asian American descent and those of Aboriginal descent. Several politicians, including Hanson and Katter, have made comments during public speeches that they plan to introduce laws and policies that limit these groups severely (Human Rights Watch). Members of the Aboriginal tribe and other indigenous tribes are also found more likely to face death during police custody (Australia Human Rights Commission). This statistic alone is proof that the government is representing the politicians’ views more than the general public. Law enforcement is intended to follow and take actions based on government legislation, which leaves society to wonder if their actions (suspicious deaths of Aboriginal people in prisons) have to do with people of higher authority. The Australian society is holding social responsibility against prison guards and police for these repetitive actions (Australia Human Rights Commission).