Key Takeaways
- Pauline Hanson and her One Nation team have repeatedly clashed with journalists, most recently using hostile language toward reporters at an Adelaide oil‑and‑gas event.
- During the Adelaide press conference, Hanson’s adviser Richard Henderson told a journalist to “shut up,” and Hanson herself later referred to someone as a “nasty bitch,” prompting laughter from her entourage.
- Earlier incidents include Hanson’s chief‑of‑staff James Ashby ejecting ABC regional reporters from a Farrer by‑eleven campaign event and the party barring the ABC from its South Australian election‑night function over disputed reporting.
- These episodes reveal a pattern of One Nation seeking to control media access and responding aggressively to perceived unfavourable coverage.
- The confrontations raise concerns about press freedom, the tone of political discourse in Australia, and the potential impact on public trust in both the party and the media.
- While Hanson’s supporters may view the exchanges as standing up to “biased” media, critics argue they undermine democratic accountability and set a troubling precedent for political‑media relations.
Background and Recent Tensions
Over the past few weeks, Pauline Hanson and the One Nation party have found themselves at the centre of a series of heated exchanges with members of the press. The pattern began with disputes over how the party’s policies on fracking and offshore drilling were being reported, escalated to direct confrontations at campaign events, and culminated in a hostile exchange at an Adelaide media conference. These incidents are not isolated outbursts but reflect a broader strategy by One Nation to limit perceived hostile coverage and to assert control over the narrative surrounding the party. The repeated involvement of senior staff members—such as adviser Richard Henderson and chief‑of‑staff James Ashby—suggests that the antagonistic stance is organisational rather than merely personal. Understanding the context of these clashes helps to explain why the party’s leadership reacts sharply when journalists pose challenging questions about policy positions or candidate selections.
The Adelaide Oil‑and‑Gas Media Conference
At an oil and gas producers event in Adelaide, Senator Hanson was fielding questions about One Nation’s stance on fracking and offshore drilling when the session turned to upcoming Senate candidates. As reporters pressed for clarification, Hanson’s media adviser, Richard Henderson, intervened abruptly, declaring, “no that’s it,” and then told a journalist, “We’re done, thank you. No, no, no. Shut up. We’re done.” The reporter, taken aback, asked, “Did you just say shut up?” to which Henderson replied, “Yes, I did tell you to shut up.” Hanson, meanwhile, turned to leave the podium, signalling the end of the press conference. The exchange was captured on video and quickly circulated, drawing criticism for its blatant disrespect toward the press and raising questions about the appropriateness of a senior party official using such language in a public setting.
The “Nasty Bitch” Remark and Party Camaraderie
Following the press conference, footage showed Hanson walking away with her entourage, including One Nation MP Barnaby Joyce. Joyce could be heard congratulating Hanson, saying, “That was good, you did very well.” In response, Hanson muttered, “…said you’re the nasty bitch,” a comment that elicited laughter from both Joyce and Henderson. Hanson then jokingly asked, “Do you want me to go back and I’ll tell her?” The remark’s target remains unclear, and the ABC has sought clarification from Henderson. Regardless of the intended recipient, the utterance underscores a casual, hostile tone within the party’s inner circle when dealing with media criticism. The laughter that followed suggests a normalization of disparaging language toward journalists, which could embolden similar behaviour in future interactions.
Earlier Confrontation: James Ashby and the Farrer By‑Election
Weeks before the Adelaide incident, One Nation’s chief‑of‑staff James Ashby was filmed ejecting ABC regional journalists from a campaign event on the eve of the Farrer by‑election. Ashby told the reporters, “Bye bye to the ABC,” and added, “See you later guys.” Hanson herself questioned the action, asking why local ABC reporters—who serve rural and regional audiences—were being removed. Ashby defended the move by claiming the journalists were “reporting back to ABC Canberra” and had been instructed to do so. Hanson countered that they “shouldn’t have gone.” This episode highlighted a early willingness by the party’s staff to physically remove journalists they perceived as hostile, setting a precedent for later, more verbal confrontations at press conferences.
South Australian State Election Night: ABC Excluded
The tensions continued on the night of the South Australian state election, when One Nation barred the ABC from its election‑night function. The party cited the ABC’s coverage of its dumped Adelaide candidate, Aoi Baxter, as the justification for the exclusion. By denying the national broadcaster access to a post‑election gathering, One Nation signalled its displeasure with what it perceived as unfair or biased reporting. The decision reinforced the pattern of restricting media access when coverage does not align with the party’s narrative, further straining relations between One Nation and major news outlets.
Implications and Broader Significance
The recurring hostile encounters between Pauline Hanson’s team and journalists raise several concerns for Australian democratic discourse. First, they threaten press freedom by creating an environment where reporters may feel intimidated or unwelcome when covering the party. Second, the use of derogatory language—such as “shut up” and “nasty bitch”—contributes to a coarser public sphere, potentially discouraging civil debate and eroding respect for journalistic inquiry. Third, the pattern of excluding or ejecting journalists from events suggests a strategic attempt to shape media narratives by limiting unfavourable coverage, which could misinform the public about the party’s policies and actions. While supporters may interpret these actions as standing up to a perceived “biased” media establishment, critics warn that normalising such behaviour undermines accountability and sets a dangerous precedent for how political entities interact with the press. Moving forward, the challenge will be to balance legitimate political communication with the essential role of a free and independent press in holding leaders to account.