SYDNEY — A federal parliamentary inquiry into racism, hate, and violence in Australia has heard explosive testimony linking the resurgence of One Nation leader Pauline Hanson to a surge in racist language and behavior across the country. Describing Hanson’s influence as an “orange elephant in the room,” a former AFL inclusion manager told the inquiry that her political rise has emboldened individuals to express prejudiced views more openly, raising urgent questions about the role of political leadership in shaping social attitudes.
The testimony, delivered during a hearing in Canberra, comes as Australia grapples with rising tensions over immigration, Indigenous rights, and multiculturalism. While Hanson has long been a polarizing figure, the inquiry’s focus on her impact marks a rare formal examination of how political rhetoric can normalize discrimination—and whether Australia’s institutions are equipped to counter it.
—
What Happened
The inquiry, officially titled the Joint Standing Committee on Human Rights Inquiry into Racism, Hate, and Violence, heard from Jason Mifsud, a former head of inclusion and social policy at the Australian Football League (AFL). Mifsud, who now works as a diversity and inclusion consultant, told the committee that Hanson’s leadership of One Nation had created a “permission structure” for racism, particularly in public discourse.
“Pauline Hanson is the orange elephant in the room,” Mifsud testified. “Her rhetoric and the platform she has been given have made it acceptable for people to voice opinions that, in previous decades, would have been considered beyond the pale.” He cited anecdotal evidence from his work in sports, where players, coaches, and fans had increasingly used racial slurs or expressed anti-immigrant views, often referencing Hanson’s statements as justification.
The inquiry also heard from other witnesses, including representatives from Indigenous communities, Muslim advocacy groups, and anti-racism organizations, who described a growing climate of hostility. One submission, from the Islamic Council of Victoria, alleged that Hanson’s 2025 campaign slogan—“Australia for Australians”—had been co-opted by far-right groups to justify harassment of Muslim Australians. Another, from the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO), linked her opposition to the Indigenous Voice to Parliament with a spike in online abuse targeting First Nations leaders.
Hanson, who was not called to testify, has previously dismissed accusations of racism, arguing that her policies—such as her long-standing opposition to multiculturalism and calls to ban Muslim immigration—are about “protecting Australian values.” In a statement to Herald Express, a One Nation spokesperson said: “Senator Hanson speaks for millions of Australians who feel ignored by the political elite. If people are using her words to justify bigotry, that is on them, not her.”
—
Why It Matters
The inquiry’s findings could have far-reaching implications for Australia’s political and social landscape. At its core, the debate centers on a fundamental question: To what extent do political leaders bear responsibility for the societal consequences of their rhetoric?
# 1. The Normalization of Racism
Mifsud’s testimony aligns with academic research suggesting that political leaders can act as “permission givers” for prejudice. A 2025 study by the Australian National University found that exposure to anti-immigrant rhetoric from high-profile figures correlated with increased racial resentment among voters. The study’s lead author, Dr. Rebecca Wickes, told Herald Express that Hanson’s “ability to frame immigration as a threat to national identity” had contributed to a “significant shift in public discourse.”
This normalization is not just anecdotal. The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) reported a 37% increase in racial discrimination complaints in 2025, the highest in a decade. While the AHRC did not directly attribute the rise to Hanson, it noted that “political rhetoric that frames minority groups as ‘other’ can create an environment where discrimination flourishes.”
# 2. The Role of Mainstream Media
Hanson’s rise has been amplified by Australia’s media landscape, particularly by outlets that have given her a platform to air controversial views. A 2026 report by the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) found that Hanson received more airtime on commercial television in 2025 than any other federal politician, including the prime minister. Critics argue that this coverage has legitimized her views, regardless of intent.
“Media outlets have a responsibility to contextualize political rhetoric, not just amplify it,” said Dr. Tim Soutphommasane, Australia’s former race discrimination commissioner. “When a figure like Hanson is given uncritical airtime, it sends a message that her views are part of the mainstream, even if they’re not.”
# 3. The Erosion of Social Cohesion
Australia has long prided itself on its multicultural identity, but the inquiry’s hearings suggest that this consensus is fraying. The Scanlon Foundation’s 2025 Mapping Social Cohesion report found that trust in government and fellow citizens had declined for the fourth consecutive year, with respondents citing “political division” and “fear of the other” as key drivers.
For marginalized communities, the consequences are tangible. The inquiry heard from a Muslim woman who said she had stopped wearing the hijab in public after being spat on and called a “terrorist.” An Indigenous man from Western Australia described being told to “go back to the bush” by a stranger who cited Hanson’s opposition to the Voice to Parliament as justification.
—
Background and Context
Pauline Hanson’s political career has been defined by controversy since her first election to parliament in 1996. Her maiden speech, in which she warned that Australia was “in danger of being swamped by Asians,” set the tone for a career built on opposition to immigration, multiculturalism, and Indigenous rights.
After a period of political irrelevance in the 2000s and 2010s, Hanson and One Nation experienced a resurgence in the mid-2020s, capitalizing on economic anxiety, distrust in institutions, and backlash against progressive social policies. In the 2025 federal election, One Nation won three Senate seats, its best result in two decades, and now holds the balance of power in the upper house.
Hanson’s influence extends beyond her party. Her rhetoric has been echoed by fringe groups, including the neo-Nazi organization National Socialist Network, which has praised her as a “patriot” and adopted her slogans in its propaganda. While Hanson has disavowed such groups, critics argue that her refusal to explicitly condemn them has emboldened their activities.
The current inquiry is not the first to examine the link between political rhetoric and racism. In 2023, a Senate committee investigated far-right extremism and found that “dog-whistle politics” from mainstream figures had contributed to the radicalization of young men. However, the current inquiry is the first to focus specifically on Hanson’s impact, reflecting her growing influence.
—
What to Watch Next
The inquiry is expected to deliver its final report in late 2026, but several key developments could shape its findings—and Australia’s response to rising racism.
# 1. Will Hanson Be Called to Testify?
The committee has not yet indicated whether it will summon Hanson to appear. Legal experts say she could refuse on the grounds that the inquiry lacks the power to compel testimony from sitting senators, but her absence would be politically damaging. If she does testify, her responses could either defuse or inflame tensions.
# 2. Potential Policy Recommendations
The inquiry’s report may include recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes, such as:
– Stronger hate speech laws: Australia’s current laws are weaker than those in many other Western democracies. The inquiry could recommend expanding protections for targeted groups.
– Media regulation: The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) could be given greater powers to penalize outlets that platform hate speech.
– Political accountability measures: The inquiry might suggest codes of conduct for politicians, though this would likely face resistance from Hanson and her allies.
# 3. The 2026 Federal Election
With an election due by May 2026, Hanson’s role in the campaign will be closely scrutinized. The major parties—Labor and the Coalition—have so far avoided directly confronting her, fearing a backlash from her supporters. However, the inquiry’s findings could force them to take a clearer stance.
# 4. Grassroots Resistance
Anti-racism groups are already mobilizing in response to the inquiry’s hearings. The Racism. It Stops With Me campaign, run by the AHRC, has seen a surge in participation, with schools, workplaces, and sports clubs signing up to challenge prejudice. Meanwhile, Indigenous and migrant communities are organizing their own advocacy efforts, demanding that the government act on the inquiry’s findings.
—
Conclusion
The testimony heard by the parliamentary inquiry paints a troubling picture of an Australia where racism is not just persistent but resurgent—and where political leadership plays a central role in either combating or enabling it. Pauline Hanson’s rise is not the sole cause of this trend, but as the “orange elephant in the room,” her influence is impossible to ignore.
The inquiry’s final report will not end the debate, but it could force Australia to confront uncomfortable questions about its identity, its values, and the kind of society it wants to be. For a country that has long seen itself as a multicultural success story, the stakes could not be higher.
As Mifsud told the committee: “Racism doesn’t just happen. It is given permission. And right now, that permission is coming from the top.”
—
Sources:
– [The Guardian: Pauline Hanson’s rise inspiring racism, parliamentary inquiry hears](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/aug/06/pauline-hanson-one-nation-leader-rise-inspiring-racism-parliament-inquiry-hears-ntwnfb)
– Australian Human Rights Commission, Racial Discrimination Complaints Report 2025
– Australian National University, The Impact of Political Rhetoric on Racial Resentment (2025)
– Scanlon Foundation, Mapping Social Cohesion 2025
– Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, Media Coverage of Political Figures in 2025 (2026)
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: The Guardian World — source
