jtk1009-772-blog - Tumblr blog

[jtk1009-772-blog]

Letter to Pauline Hanson

Dear Ms. Hanson,

   My name is Jack Kenney, and I am currently a senior at the University of New Hampshire. This semester, I am currently enrolled in a course titled ‘Media and Populism’, so I am sure it does not surprise you that your name if often brought up in class materials and class sessions. The purpose of this letter is to address concerns I have regarding particular statements and claims you have made, and whether or not they are factual. The statements that I will be focusing on revolve around the topic of immigration and are being pulled from your 2016 maiden speech.

   During this maiden speech in 2016, you stated that Australia is currently “in danger of being swamped by Muslims” (News). How can this be true when, in 2011, the Muslim population only makes up “2.2 per cent of the total population” of Australia (The Feed)? I am not sure what you would consider ‘swamped’, but I certainly hope this would not be it. Furthermore, the Muslim relgion is not even in the top three when it comes to identification, as “Christianity (61.1 per cent), Atheism (22.9 per cent) and Buddhism (2.5 per cent)” all make up more than 2.2 percent (The Feed). In regards to this information, I would like to ask you why you would make this statement when the numbers so concretely debunk it?

   Additionally, you stated that “indiscriminate immigration and aggressive multiculturalism have caused crime to escalate” (News). It is interesting you said this, because “according to the Australian Institute of Criminology there has been no noticeable increase in overall crime rates” (The Feed). Could this statement have something to do with your belief that Australia is being swamped by Muslims? When you put these statements next to each other, it seems as if you are attempting to create a false narrative in regards to Muslims and immigration in general. Is there any truth behind this?

   Sticking with statements you have made about Muslims, you stated that “Muslim leaders are deafening with their silence, or lack of sympathy” (News). How can this be true when “muslim leaders are encouraging their community charities to set up a fund and raise money for the family of Curtis Cheng”, an Australian citizen who was killed in a terrorist act (Sydney Morning Herald)? How can this be true when “Australia’s most senior Muslim cleric, the Grand Mufti, has joined Muslim community leaders in condemning the Sydney siege” (News.au)? How can this be true when, after a police officer was stabbed in an act of terrorism, the Islamic Council of Victoria commented saying how they are “with deep sorrow that we note last night’s tragic event”, and how they have “called for a full investigation into the incident” (The Guardian)? Although there is no concrete numerical information to debunk this, it only takes a few quick internet searches to know this statement is false, so why would you say it?

   Lastly, you have stated that Muslims “tolerance to our customs has seen Christmas carols no longer sung at some schools and bibles not to be found in most hospitals” (News). I was wondering if you could provide information to back this statement up? Within five minutes, I was able to quickly find that the Victorian education website, and saw how it clearly states that “key religious celebrations such as Christmas” are allowed (Victoria).

   Not only am I hoping to reach you, Ms. Hanson, in regards to these statements, but I hope to also gain the attention of your fellow One Nation politicians and your constituents. I hope this letter accomplishes two critical goals. To start, I hope the information I have provided urges your constituents and peers to think twice about trusting everything that you say. Next, I hope this is a wake up call for you, Ms. Hanson, as these clearly false, ridiculous statements work in collobaration to suggest a possible racist, xenophobic belief that you may hold. Do you want people to think you are racist? What exactly do you have against the Muslim religion? How ignorant do you have to be to group the whole religion in with the violent extremists? I would hope that what these statements suggest about you are not true.

   There are two reasons why the truth is important. To start, you are “the first independent female to win a seat in the House of Representatives” (One Nation). Is this the example you would like to set for young girls in Australia who look up to you? Do you want to teach these young girls that lying is okay, especially when it suggests something as disgusting as racism? The second reason is simple; treating decent people properly. Throughout your political career, it is clear that your goal is to keep the “promise of power to the people” (Canovan, 1999, 1). Who do you see as the people? Why can’t Australian Muslims be included in this category? Everyone deserves to be treated equally, and with your prestigious position in the Senate, you must exemplify this. I am expecting you to respond with something along the lines of how you are talking about dangerous Muslims, not the Muslims who are already in Australia contributing to society, which we both know is simply a strategy to avoid criticism. If you decide to stick with this response,  I have a suggestion. To avoid confusion, you should consider using the phrase “radical Islamic group… [which are] those Muslim extremists who idetify with Islamic countries and who in the name of Islam tend to resort to violence”, instead of simply saying ‘Muslims’ (Kabir, 2005, 8).

   It saddens me that I had to write this letter. I look forward to hearing your response.

                                                                          Sincerely, Jack Kenney

[jtk1009-772-blog]

Malcolm Roberts Profile

(Malcolm Roberts)

Malcolm Roberts Background

In 1955, Malcolm Roberts was born in Disergarh, India (Parliament), and then moved to Australia to earn his engineering degree from the University of Queensland (OneNation). After graduation, Roberts “rose quickly through management ranks to lead and turnaround underground coal mines, a coal processing plant and [he] managed an ocean ship loader” (OneNation). In addition to his engineering degree, Roberts also holds a degree in business administration from the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business (OneNation). After starting a family, Roberts created a company which offered “specialised leadership and management services around Australia” (OneNation). In 2016, Stephen Andrew entered politics and was elected to the Queensland Senate, and also officially joined Pauline Hanson’s One Nation political party (Parliament).

Malcolm Roberts on Climate Change

Malcolm Roberts stance on climate change is clear-cut, as he stated in his first parliamentary speech, “It is clear that climate change is a scam […] changes in the carbon dioxide level [of the atmosphere] are a result of changes in temperature, not a cause” (Desmog). On November 13th, 2019, Australia’s Academy of Science called upon politicians to “stop undermining science” in regards to climate change denial (TheLand). Multiple inquiries have been set up by Australian parliament to ask “why there had been so little science done on the impact of seismic testing for oil and gas on marine” (TheLand). Senator Malcolm Roberts “congratulated a Queensland marine scientist for speaking out against concerned about run-off in the Great Barrier Reef” and how it may not be as detrimental as many believe (TheLand).

Is Malcolm Roberts a “Sovereign Citizen”?

The best way to describe a sovereign citizen is any “anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or ‘sovereign’ from [the country at hand]” (Theret, 853). Political scientists have introduced ideas suggesting that the people of Australia “may have elected a follower of the sovereign citizen movement to the Senate” (TheGuardian). The fact that sovereign citizens believe in the ideology of “rejection of legal authority of governments”, and because Roberts is so involved in government, these implications made by these political scientists seem “like a pretty clear contradiction” (TheGuardian). Although Roberts has denied these claims, there are particular aspects of his political career that say otherwise. The first reason is in regards to his stance on climate change. Roberts believes that the climate change effort is not publicized in order to save the planet, but instead to “institute one world government… at the expense of individual sovereignty”, which can be described as a stance of a sovereign citizen (TheGuardian). Additionally, Roberts has been seen “pestering journalists and politicians, issuing bizarre affidavits to prime ministers, and authoring long reports”, which are all characteristics of a sovereign citizen (TheGuardian).

Malcolm Roberts and Populism

According to Mudde, Malcolm Roberts falls into the category of a ‘Vox Populi’ for two main reasons. To start, a ‘Vox Populi’ is a figure who presents themselves “as the true voice of the people” (Mudde, 2017, 68), and he has stated that “instead of people feeling voiceless, powerless and squashed, we can listen and take action together to restore democracy, ensure security and build hope for all Australians” (OneNation). Furthermore, he has stated that he is “completely devoted to representing all Queenslanders in the Senate” (OneNation). These quotes from Malcolm Roberts shows us that his “professed aim is to cash in democracy’s promise of power to the people” (Canovan, 1999, 1). Another reason why he falls under the category of a ‘Vox Populi’ is because he presents himself as someone who “has nothing in common with the political establishment” (Mudde, 2017, 73). We know this is true because of his profile page on the One Nation website, as his interests include “engineering, mining, business leadership and has a keen interest in economics'', with no mention of politics (OneNation).

Malcolm Roberts and the Media

Senator Roberts is very active on social media, with his Twitter account up to twenty one thousand tweets and over fifteen thousand followers (Twitter). The manner in which he uses his Twitter is in first person, as he tweeted on November 26th, “Yesterday, I spoke about 3 ‘free trade’ agreements” (Twitter), which is effective because here, he is speaking directly to the people. His facebook has even more followers, looking at over fifty thousand people subscribing to his page (Facebook). On Facebook, he uses personalized videos to reach out to his constituents (Facebook). In addition, Senator Roberts offers links to One Nation apparel (Facebook).

[jtk1009-772-blog]

Collage

Collage reflection and explanation:

At the beginning stages of creating my collage, I decided I wanted to choose a political figure who is well known in the world of politics for being a strong populist, so I decided to go with Pauline Hanson, a member of the Australian Parliament. After deciding who I wanted to base my collage of off, I decided to choose pictures that can best captivate the different groups within Australia in which Pauline Hanson often attacks. At the top, you see an Asian man holding an Australian flag, looking towards Hanson with a smile. Hanson has been attacking Asain immigrants entering Australia since one of her first speeches aftering entering Australian politics in 1996, claiming she believes Australians are “in danger of being swamped by Asians (Sydney Morning Herald) when speaking on immigration. I decided to flip the picture of the Asian man so that he is facing Hanson, suggesting acceptance with his smile. Next, I decided to include a group of five muslim women, with the same smiling expression as the man above them. Much like Pauline Hanson has gone after Asain immigrants, she has also targeted Muslim immigrants, many from the Middle East. Similar to her speech in 1996, she said in 2016 that Australians are now “in danger of being swamped by Muslims” (SBS), as well as comparing to Islam as a “disease” (Huffington Post). Towards the bottom of the collage, I decided to add in a picture of Aboriginal Australians, because they are the third group that Pauline Hanson is known for attacking. Hanson believes that this group of people is receiving “more benefits than non-Aboriginals”, and Hanson believes the regular Australian should always be the first priority (Sydney Morning Herald). Hanson has blamed this problem on the Australian government, saying “present governments are encouraging separatism in Australia by providing opportunities, land, moneys and facilities available only to Aboriginals” (Sydney Morning Herald). With the combination of these three groups, all with smiling faces, and most wearing Australian colors with pride, symbolizes the dreamed acceptance as Australians in the eyes of Hanson as she scowles down upon them.

Connecting to class material:

The main reason why Pauline Hanson is so open about her disagreement regarding how these groups are treated by the Australian government is because she believes that these groups are taking away opportunities for the Australian people, and she views herself as Australian’s “mother, [and] Australia is [her] home and the Australian people are [her] children” (Mudde, 2017, 68). This can connect to the concept of ‘Vox Populi’ because one who falls under that category is one who presents themselves “as the true voice of the people”, such as Hanson does (Mudde, 2017, 68). It can also connect to ‘Vox Populi’ by the way Hanson uses her “sex to construct” herself as a motherly figure in the quote previousy stated (Mudde, 2017, 69). Her passion for being the voice of the people is the paramount reason Hanson speaks out against these groups. With Hanson’s displeasure regarding the way the Australian government treats Aborginal Australians, Hanson takes a Rightwing populism stance by turning the people against the elites (Australian government) in which they believe are favoring a third party (Aborginals) (The Guardian).

Picture citation:

(ABC News)

(AU News)

(Amust)

(Conversation)

[jtk1009-772-blog]

Protecting Australian Dairy Bill Shot Down

On October 16th, 2019, Senator Pauline Hanson introduced and read the Protecting Australian Dairy Bill to the Senate (Parliament). This bill would have amended the Competition and Consumer Act of 2010 (Parliament), which covers “the relationships between suppliers, wholesalers, retailers, and consumers [and its] purpose is to enhance the welfare of Australians by promoting fair trading and competition, and through the provision of consumer protections” (ACCC). The amendment would have determined “base minimum price for milk for each dairy season; require the minister to refer to the Productivity Commission for inquiry the effectiveness of determining a base price for milk and the potential effectiveness of a divestiture regime for the dairy industry; and establish a mandatory industry code for the food and grocery industry, including the dairy industry” (Parliament). On November 12th, “The Senate defeated Senator Hanson’s Protecting Australian Dairy bill by one vote”, even though the Australian government has been working on a code for these products for three years (Australian).

Senator Bridget McKenzie, the Agriculture Minister, said she would not rush the regulations to meet “some arbitrary time frame”, while Senator Hanson called for McKenzie to resign over her “diabolic” handling of the dairy code (Australian). Furthermore, Senator Hanson also commented saying that her political party, One Nation, must take the lead on this matter, and how the political party, The Nationals, are “no longer the party of the bush” (Australian).

NSW Nationals Senator Perin Davey responded saying that “we [Nationals] do not support a floor price as we are told by farmers and industry bodies alike that they do not want a floor price” (Australian), while Susan McDonald, Senators Davey’s Queensland colleague, “hit back at the notion the Nationals [were] not standing and fighting for farmers”, and continued by saying that she lives “in regional areas, [she comes] from these regional areas and [she speaks] daily to farmers and processors and producers who are all part of the agricultural supply chain”, suggesting she knows what these hard workers want (Australian). Additionally, she stated that the worst part about not agreeing on a code is the fact that it gives farmers “hope when [we]... will not provide it” (Australian).

Farmers in Australia:

Due to the fact that “Farmers are not only responsible for the productivity of the nation's agricultural industry, [and the idea that] their well-being also directly affects the entire social and economic future of agricul-turally dependant rural communities” (Gorman), it is clear how important the workers are in the grand scheme of things for Australia. These farmers are under a great deal of stress due to “production demands, financial uncertainty, weather pat-terns, long work hours, intergenerational relationships and an ageing population” (Gorman). This information is being presented to you to exemplify the reasoning why Pauline Hanson feels the need to stick up for this critical group of workers.

How does this connect to Populism?

Much like the prairie populist in 19th century North America, Pauline Hanson also believes “the people to be farmers”, but instead in Australia (Mudde). We know this is factual because

Hanson has been “[standing] up for dairy farmers by abstaining from voting in [the] Senate” (SyndeyMorningHerald). Hanson views those who have “tilted the land and produced all the goods of society” as the pure people, and it is clear she is challenging the elite (The Nationals in the Senate) in order to be the voice of these farmers (Mudde). It is also evident that Hanson is passionate about being the voice for these farmers, as she broke “down in tears as she discussed the plight of the country’s farmers on Sydney radio” (NewDaily). It is interesting to note the similarities between what Pauline Hanson is fighting for in Australia currently and what other populists have fought for in our history. We know that what Pauline Hanson is doing for these farmers is an example of Populism because she is “[appealing] to ‘the people’ [the farmers] [by going against] ...the established structure of power” (Canovan), and this is the most lucid way in which we can understand how this event connects to Populism.

[jtk1009-772-blog]

Event Analysis

Event Analysis

Australians Stuck in the Middle East

On October 1st, 2019, Australian women and children hid in tents at the al-Hawl camp in Syria as a shooting broke out between Islamic terrorists and Kurdish soldiers (Sydney Morning Herald). The shooting began when Islamic terrorists started beating a group of women at the camp (Sydney Morning Herald). There were audio clips and text messages sent by some Australian women, letting people home in Australia know about the violence and to “please let somebody know” (Sydney Morning Herald). In Syria, there are sixty-six Australian women and children living in unhealthy, dangerous conditions with 70,000 other people in these camps as well, and within this disease-ridden shelter, protection is getting rapidly worse (Sydney Morning Herald). In addition to disease and violence, people in this camp are dealing with “discrimination, acculturative stress, and family conflict [which increases] risk for disorder and distress across groups in complex ways” (Sangalang).

Australian Government Makes Controversial Announcement

As of October 8th, 2019, Australia has announced that they have no more plans to rescue Australia citizens who are trapped in Northern Syrian squalid camps, although Australian Defence Minister Linda Reynolds is still very concerned with the safety of these Australians.  (The Guardian). These squalid camps consist of dirty, unhealthy, and unsanitary conditions (Your Dictionary). The reason why Australian officials have made this decision is because they do not want to put any more Australian lives at risk attempting to get these citizens out of Syria (The Guardian). There are twenty women in this camp and more than forty children (The Guardian). With this decision, Australians who are impacted have spoken out. A Sydney man, Kamalle Dabboussy, who has family within these camps has said that Syria is safer today than it will be in the future due to the fact that US troops are still providing a measure of security in Syria, but that will not last long since President Trump has recently decided to take these troops out of Syria, which will take some time, thus exemplifying the importance of urgency (The Guardian). Additionally, he stated that he had made it out of the same camp safely and that it can be done, but the Australian government is lacking the will to do so (The Guardian). Linda Reynold’s response to this criticism is that if Australian troops attempt to save these individuals, it is likely that more Australians die in the process, especially because of the rising war tension between Syria and Turkey (The Guardian).

Confusion, fear, and panic has spread amongst Australian’s in this camp after the news of the US withdrawal of troops (The Guardian). Not only do these camps lack medical care and present a high risk of disease, there are Syrian extremists within the camp putting the Australians at an even higher risk (The Guardian). With the potential of war in Syria from Turkish soldiers attempting to fight back against extremists within the country, the Australian’s within these camps face even more danger, as there are only 400 troops guarding these camps (The Guardian). Reynolds has stated that Australia will continue to monitor the situation and act accordingly when more information is available (The Guardian).

Prediction on How Pauline Hanson May Respond

Although Pauline Hanson has yet to comment on the decision by Australian officials in regards to making no plans to rescue the Australian citizens who are trapped in Syria, it is interesting to use what we already know about Pauline Hanson to predict whether or not she would agree with this particular decision.

On one hand, Pauline Hanson is known for her “brand of isolationism” (News) and her protectionist ideologies (One Nation). Although this is often in terms of economics (News) and immigration (One Nation), this can still give us a small amount of insight on how she may react to the Australian government's decision. She implements this ideology of isolationism on economics (News) “in order to ‘protect’ a domestic firm” (Political Economy Terms). I believe that the keyword in the previous sentence is to “protect”. I believe this idea can connect to Linda Reynolds's reasoning for not planning to save the Australian’s in the Syrian camps. Reynolds stated that “we [Australian Parliament] will not be endangering the lives of other Australians” (The Guardian) in order to save the endangered. In addition to this, I believe an isolationist like Hanson would want to completely remove Australia from Syria as fast as possible, even if it means sacrificing a small portion of Australian lives. While on the other hand, Pauline Hanson has stated, in an extremely Populist fashion, that “Australia is [her] home and the Australian people are [her] children” (Mudde, 2017, 68), which leads me to believe that she would, in fact, disagree with the decision to not save her  “children” (Mudde, 2017, 68) when it comes to a rescue mission in the Middle East, and I believe that idea prevails over her isolationist ideologies. Furthermore, Hanson, as well as many other known Populists, views herself “as the true voice of the people” (Mudde, 2017, 68), which in turn means she would stand up for people like Kamalle Dabboussy who have family members in immediate danger (The Guardian), and this would hold true if her “professed aim is to cash in democracy’s promise of power to the people” (Canovan, 1999, 1). As Hanson has been known for putting a great deal of pressure on dominating political parties in Australia regarding her drastically differing views, why would she stop when it comes to saving her ‘children’ in a time of need (One Nation)? Lastly, in the most basic form of thinking about how she may respond, one could refer to Pauline Hanson’s One Nation political party’s name in a literal sense (One Nation). She prides herself on the idea that Australia is One Nation, which also leads me to think that she may agree with the Australian government’s decision.

How Hanson Actually Responded

Days after this decision was announced by the Australian government, Pauline Hanson posted a clip from an interview in which she was explaining her stance on whether or not these children and women in Syria should be rescued, and she has made it clear they should not even be allowed in Australia, nevermind rescued (Facebook). She stated that “Australian’s don’t want them in their country” and she believes these children and women are “incompatible” with Australian life (Facebook). She speaks about how she fears the threat of “terrorism” (Facebook). She then asks the interviewer to tell her the “employment prospects” of these people, suggesting there is no benefit to let them back into the country (Facebook). She believes that if people leave “western society”, Australia should not welcome them back with open arms when they need assistance (Facebook). This response from Hanson is not out of character for her, but with her populist ideologies, this response was not certain.

[jtk1009-772-blog]

Profile - Pauline Hanson

(Wiki)

Pauline Hanson’s introduction:

Pauline Hanson was born in 1954 in Brisbane, Australia (Parliament). After her studies at Coorparoo State School, located in Queensland, Australia (Wiki), she became a single mother of four and a small business owner from 1978 to 1997 (Parliament). Her career in politics began locally, as she joined the Ipswich City Council from 1994 to 1995 (Parliament). After being in the city council, she was then elected to the House of Representatives for Oxley, Queensland in 1996 (Parliament). After being elected and making her Maiden speech, the support for Hanson skyrocketed due to her unconventional style (Parliament). While this was important for Hanson’s political career, it was also important for Australia in general, as she was the first independent female to win a seat in the House of Representatives (One Nation). Although she won independently, she was a part of the Liberal political party previously, until the endorsement was taken away due to politically incorrect comments she made in regards to multiculturalism (One Nation). After serving on the House of Representatives, Hanson was defeated after one two-year term in 1998 (One Nation), and she will not officially return into Australian politics until 2016, 8 years later.

In 1997, Pauline Hanson founded the Pauline Hanson’s One Nation political party (One Nation). The political party used populist and protectionist ideologies (One Nation). Protectionism can be described as “political-economic doctrines that have in common advocating that government impose political barriers to international trade… in order to ‘protect’ a domestic firm” (Political Economy Terms). In Pauline Hanson’s One Nation’s case regarding a Protectionism platform, the party advocated the restoration of import tariffs (One Nation). Like this stance on import tariffs, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party is very set-in-stone when it comes to other particular policies as well. To start, the party believes that Australia needs to reduce immigration to a great extent due to the party's serious disagreement with multiculturalism and policies that support it (One Nation). The reason behind their opinions regarding immigration and multiculturalism is because Hanson believes that these immigrants will not be able to properly assimilate to Australian culture, and she has even used negative terms such as “the Asianisation of Australia” (One Nation) to describe what she thinks will happen if changes are not made. This statement was made early in her political career (One Nation). The party also believes in increased support for small businesses in Australia (One Nation). This makes sense because of Pauline Hanson’s life before politics.

While Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party has not been very successful electorally, the political party has made somewhat of an impact on Australia politics. To begin, the party put great pressure on other political parties in Australia, particularly the National Party, regrading constituency support during Hanson’s most popular years (One Nation). Next, the party's edgy political style revealed some dissatisfaction between Australian citizens and the major political parties (One Nation). Hanson also believes that many of her ideologies have been implemented by other major parties after hearing what she has to say (One Nation). The largest impact that Hanson made on Australia was breaking “the chains of political correctness” within the country (One Nation).

Today, after years of being irrelevant since Hanson’s House of Representative term, the populist figure returned as the leader of the party once more in 2014 (One Nation). The same views that she founded the party on were once more being implemented in the same kind of ways she did back in the early 2000s (One Nation). These principles include nationalism, conservatism, and equality amongst all Australians (One Nation). In 2015, she once again renamed the One Nation party back to “Pauline Hanson’s One Nation” party (One Nation). Hanson has also made clear what the party is strongly against, and for the most part, nothing has changed. A few of these ideas that she is against include multiculturalism, different laws for different cultures, foreign ownership within the country, and radical Islam (One Nation). In 2016, Pauline Hanson made her official return to Australian politics as a Senator, where she serves today (One Nation).

Pauline Hanson and the frameworks of populism:

It is clear that Pauline Hanson fashions herself as a ‘Vox Populi’ for a few different reasons. To start, a ‘Vox Populi’ is a figure who presents themselves “as the true voice of the people” (Mudde, 2017, 68). The way that Pauline Hanson does this is by using her “sex to construct [her] outsider status” (Mudde, 2017, 69). An example of this is when Hanson stated that “[she] care[s] so passionately about this country, [she’s] like [it’s] mother, Australia is [her] home and the Australian people are [her] children” (Mudde, 2017, 68).

Hanson also presents herself as a ‘Vox Populi’ by attempting to act as a political outsider. A political outsider is described as someone who “has nothing in common with the political establishment” (Mudde, 2017, 73). Even though she was involved with local politics, Hanson stated in her Maiden speech after winning the House of Representatives election in 1997, “I come here not as a polished politician but as a woman who has had her fair share of life��s knocks” (Sydney Morning Herald). When Hanson showed the public that she was not interconnected with the currently established political world, she was able to distance herself from previous, disliked policies as well as ducking the possible ‘corruption’ accusation that many politicians face during elections (Sydney Morning Herald).

Due to Hanson’s stance on equality, the populist figure is very much so against “Aboriginals [receiving] more benefits than non-Aboriginals” (Sydney Morning Herald). She has previously stated that Australia’s “present governments are encouraging separatism in Australia by providing opportunities, land, money and facilities available only to Aboriginals” (Sydney Morning Herald). Hanson blamed the political elites for putting Aboriginals' rights over the ordinary Australian. Because of this approach, Hanson falls into the Rightwing populism category. Rightwing populism puts the people against an elite in which they believe are favoring a third party (The Guardian). Hanson is putting the people against the elites as she believes they favor Aboriginals. This, along with the amount of immigration that goes on in Australia are, is one of the main problems Hanson has with the establishment (One Nation).

Pauline Hanson’s relationship with the media:

Pauline Hanson has a very unique communication style that many would consider to be politically incorrect and borderline racist. In 1996, after she secured a position in Parliament, she spoke on the topic of immigration, and she stated in a speech, “I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians” (Sydney Morning Herald). A few years ago, in 2016, she also stated the same exact thing in a speech but instead replaced Asians with “Muslims” (SBS). Additionally, she has compared Islam to a “disease” (Huffington Post). Due to these statements, it is clear that Hanson is not afraid of breaking the political correctness rules and she is not afraid of what the media may say about her. Additionally, she has an interesting feature on the Pauline Hanson’s One Nation website. The page is titled “The True Victims of Political Correctness” (One Nation). The contents of the page show a video of a man holding white signs with texts that state what will be lost if Australia continues in a politically correct direction. One white signs says “No Merry Christmas”, while the next white sign says “No Happy Easter” (One Nation). The last white sign states that the “only way to stop this is vote one nation!!!” (One Nation). Hanson uses this video and others on her social media platforms in order to connect to her supporters who may be worried about how far political correctness may go.  

Although Pauline Hanson and the media do not often get along, Hanson would never have been so successful and popular if it was not for the media, due to her lack of grassroots campaigning (Deutchman, 1999, 34). Australia news media outlets and Pauline Hanson have not only been at war when it comes to political correctness, but Hanson has also accused the media early in her career of inaccurate crowd numbers being printed, and how she is “so sick and tired of [the media]” (News). Similar to President Trump now, Hanson often talks about how the media wants to see her “demise” (News). In the late 90s, Hanson banned ABC from covering the One Nation celebration, even though other outlets were allowed to attend (News). While it is clear Hanson does need mainstream news outlets to cover her, she puts in effort to create her own “direct paths to voters via social media” (News). An example of this is the live steaming she does on her Facebook page, where she is able to interact with the voters who are commenting directly (Facebook).  

[jtk1009-772-blog]

Special Issue Brief

Image of where Christmas Island is in comparison to Australia (Wiki)

Offshore processing in Australia:

In 2001, Prime Minister John Howard established the Pacific Solution, which sent asylum-seekers who arrived in Australia by boat to Nauru and Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island, in which they would wait in immigration centers for their refugee claims to be processed (Fleay, 2014, Abstract). Since August 2012, 4,177 people have been sent to Nauru or Papua New Guinea (PNG) in order to undergo the immigration processing arrangements (Refugee Council). As of August 2019, 288 people have left Nauru and 306 people have left PNG (Refugee Council). Out of these numbers, today, a little over 600 people have departed to the United States from these camps, and 258 people have been approved and are waiting for their departure as well (Refugee Council). Before continuing, it is important to understand the difference, in the eyes of the Australian government, between refugees and asylum seekers. To begin, “Asylum seekers are individuals who arrive in a country- either legally, as a visitor, tourist, or student, or illegally, with no or fraudulent documentation- and apply for recognition as a refugee” (Foley, 2003, 1). Furthermore, “Asylum seekers are not considered refugees until their claims for protection have been assessed against criteria” (Foley, 2003, 1). The criteria of a refugee is described as one who is “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country” (Foley, 2003, 1).

Medevac Bill:

The Medevac Bill was passed by Parliament on August 29th, 2019 (Refugee Council). The Medevac Bill was passed as Parliament intended to create a smooth process to treat sick alyssum-seeking refugees by bringing them to Christmas Island, which is supposed to have adequate medical professionals and equipment, unlike Nauru and PNG, as they do not (The Guardian). After the implementation of this bill, there were three main concerns from varying parties. The first was a concern from the Australian government themselves, as they were worried about border security and protection (The Guardian). The next concern was from civil rights groups, activists and the refugees themselves, and this was regarding the fact that Christmas Island did not have adequate hospitals and professionals, which was the whole purpose of the bill in the first place (The Guardian). These same groups were also concerned about another issue, and this is regarding the idea that registered doctors and medical services could not treat these immigrants at Nauru or PNG, and instead, the sick asylum-seekers had to wait to be shipped to Christmas Island (The Guardian).

Following this bill, the Medical Evacuation Response Group (MERG) was created in 2019 in order to manage transfer requests and create a smooth process in regards to receiving and reviewing medical applications of the refugee at hand (The Guardian). MERG has received about 11.5 applications for assistance each day, and they have been able to address 8.2 of these applications each day (MERG).

Why does this matter?

Within these refugee camps, the asylum seekers were subject to violence, threats, and harassment from residents of where the specific camp is located (Human Rights Watch). In addition to these conditions, refugees within the camps who need medical attention have dealt with unnecessary delays (Human Rights Watch), and this is being addressed by implementing the Medevac Bill. Prior to the bill, the Australian authorities ignored doctors’ recommendations regarding these camps (Human Rights Watch). As well as physical medical conditions being neglected, mental health has also been put on the back burner, as suicide attempts and self-harm are frequent in these camps (Human Rights Watch). In 2017, it was reported that two refugees with histories of mental illness both committed suicide in one of the camps (Human Rights Watch). While these conditions are consistently dangerous, certain political situations have been known to increase turmoil in these camps. In 2016, PNG Supreme Court ruled that detaining asylum-seekers and forcing them to Manus Island (owned by Papua New Guinea) breached the Papua New Guinea Constitution (Human Rights Watch). Due to this ruling, food, water, and power were stripped from the Manus Island immigration center and the refugees were told to move to other less secure facilities within the town (Human Rights Watch). After the Supreme Court ruling, these refugees lived in fear and refused to leave the closed facility because they did not believe that the facilities in the main town were safe (Human Rights Watch). Following this event, the Australian government paid $56 million dollars to the people detained on Manus Island due to a class action lawsuit (Human Rights Watch). Additionally, Australia implemented amendments to the Border Force Act in order to reduce the threat of this situation occurring again (Human Rights Watch).

Different groups involved with this issue:

The Australian government does not provide the public with many statistics regarding where exactly these asylum-seeking people who are placed in offshore processing are coming from, so it is hard to determine which specific groups hold the majority in each specific camp (Refugee Council). Although this lack of information is frustrating, we are able to make educated guesses regarding where they may be coming from by looking at which country is granted the most visas by the Australian government. After reviewing this information, it can be speculated that most of these asylum-seeking people subjected to these camps are from the middle east (Settlement Services International). Between 2015-2016, 4,358 visas were granted for people coming from Iraq, 4,261 visas were granted for people coming from Syria, 1,951 visas were granted for people coming from Myanmar, and 1,714 visas granted for people coming from Afghanistan (Settlement Services International). This information can also be connected to the fact that Syria, Myanmar, and Afghanistan all are within the top five countries regarding where most refugees come from in general (World Vision). With these pieces of information working together, it can be assumed that most of the asylum-seekers are coming from the middle east.

What’s at stake?

For most of the asylum seekers who are coming from the middle east, it is clear that most of these people do not have any other options but to try to enter places like Australia. As they leave their middle eastern countries, they are attempting to avoid many different daunting circumstances. For example, people leaving Syria are removing themselves from a country that lacks infrastructure and services, in addition to the threat of commonly used explosive devices (World Vision). In Afghanistan, fleers are hoping to avoid the notorious drought and other natural disasters (World Vision). Furthermore, people are fleeing Myanmar in order to avoid inadequate medical attention within their home country (World Vision). All of the asylum seekers in all of these middle eastern countries are facing the same question; stay put and attempt to deal with the evident dangers in their country, or leave their country in hopes to find somewhere safe?

Similar issue within the United States:

Within the United States, immigration centers that are similar to Australia’s exist all over the country. There are many scary similarities between Australia’s immigration centers and America’s immigration centers. In Clint, Texas, New York Times reported that the detention center was filled with Scabies, Shingles, and Chickenpox (NY Times). It was also reported that the residents of this center had clothes that were so smelly, even the workers adopted the smell on their clothes when they left the center for the day (NY Times). These unsanitary conditions can also be found in Australia’s immigration centers, and these conditions can be directly correlated with the amount of sick asylum-seekers in both the US and Australia. Another similarity between both of these types of centers is the lack of attention regarding mental health. Just like in Australia, the asylum seekers in these centers are not given proper mental health treatment, as it was reported a child attempted to take her own life in the Clint, Texas detention center (NY Times). The scariest similarity between the two is the fact that both the Australian government and the United States government were aware of these conditions, but these “officials [had] taken no action” (NY Times).

Pauline Hanson on Immigration:

Pauline Hanson, the most prominent populist figure in Australian politics, has a very clear cut stance on immigration. In 1996, Hanson stated that Australia is “in danger of being swamped by Asians”, and in 2016, Hanson stated that “now we are in danger of being swamped by Muslims” (The Guardian). Hanson is now demanding a halt in immigration, and she believes if you are a migrant who does not assimilate to the Australian way of life, then you should “go back where you came from” (The Guardian). Although she would happily welcome migrants who did properly assimilate, she does not believe that the vast majority of migrants, who are Muslim, have the capability to do so (The Guardian). The reason she has this stance is because Hanson believes that being a Muslim is more than a religion, it is also a political agenda (The Guardian). Hanson has provided a plethora of claims to back up her ideas against Muslims. For example, she explains how Muslims are imprisoned more than three times the average rate (The Guardian). She also said that Muslims in Australia have a high jail population rate, unemployment rate, and organized crime rate, although she did not provide any actual statistics (The Guardian). In addition to her fear of safety regarding the Australian citizens, she also believes that immigration takes away from services like schools and hospitals and only favors the elites, the bankers and wealthy businessmen (The Guardian).

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party believes that immigration needs to be cut down drastically, from the current 250,000 annual permanent immigration target, down to the 70,000/80,000 range (One Nation). Furthermore, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation wants to be removed from the United Nations Refugee Convention, because once those cuts are made, there will be no beneficial reason to stay in the convention (One Nation). The party believes that asylum seekers should make an application and send it in for further review at the closest safe country near them before coming to Australia, and if, once accepted, the refugee may not reject resettlement, and doing so will result in discontinuation of economic support (One Nation).

When tying back to the $56-million-dollar payout from the Australian government to the Manus Island asylum seekers due to inhumane conditions that were previously discussed, Pauline Hanson’s statements on the situation give us a clear idea on how she feels about these asylum seekers and asylum seekers in general. Hanson believes that the Australian government is getting fooled, and these asylum seekers have no regard for Australia in general (SBS News). She also accused the asylum seekers for using self-harm that occurred within the detention center in order to achieve personal benefits such as money or better resettlement (SBS News).

[jtk1009-772-blog]

Australia’s Media Landscape Overview

[Nine Entertainment Company Logo] (Annual Reports)

Overview of the media landscape:

The most powerful media companies:

There are two major news media companies in Australia. The first major media company is Nine Entertainment Company, which provides Australians with all different types of content, such as news, lifestyle, entertainment, and sports (Nine Entertainment). In 2018, Nine Entertainment merged with Fairfax Media which created “Australia’s largest locally owned media company with investments spanning television, video on demand, print, digital, radio, and real estate classifieds” (Nine Entertainment). Before the merge, Fairfax media had popular programs such as The Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian Financial Review (Nine Entertainment). Although these popular shows were acquired by Nine Entertainment, they will continue to be reviewed independently (Digital News Report). The second major news company is News Corp Australia, which is one of the world’s leading media and informative outlets (News Corp). Furthermore, more than 16 million Australian’s subscribe to News Corp, making it the most viewed media company in Australia (News Corp). 

Most popular social media platforms:

In Australia, the most popular social media outlets, in order, are Facebook, YouTube, Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Instagram, and WhatsApp (Digital News Report). Facebook is in the lead by a large margin of 17% (for news) above its next closest competitor, YouTube (Digital News Report). 

Non-commercial media companies and commercial media companies/how news is consumed:

The strong non-commercial media company in Australia is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which is funded by direct grants from the Australian Government (Wiki). Although the Australian government funds ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), the programs are independent of the Australian government and partisanship (Wiki). The corporation is paramount in Australia’s Journalistic independence (Wiki). The popular commercial companies that are active in Australia include Facebook and YouTube, as previously mentioned above (Digital News Report), although they rank third behind TV and internet in regards to how Australians attain their news (Digital News Report). Similar to other countries, the newspaper is on a decline in Australia, while social media has stayed the same for quite some time, and television continues to be the main resource regarding the medium in which news is viewed (Digital News Report).

Broadband internet access:

Australians avidly use the internet throughout their country, as it was recorded in 2016 that 78.8% of households have internet access (Population Experts). The top internet providers are Telstra, Optus, and TPG (WhistleOut). On another note, the Australian government funds satellite telephones and internet connections in rural areas (Freedom House). 

The public’s trust in media: 

Around the world, the public’s trust in media has fallen 2%, but since 2018, Australia’s trust in the media fell 6% from a high of a 50% trust rating (Digital News Report). Within the country, 44% of people trust the overall news and 51% of people trust the news that they particularly choose to consume (Digital News Report). Additionally, 18% of people trust the news they acquire from social media. 

Press freedom and challenges to journalism:

Legal protections regarding freedom of the press in Australia: 

In Australia, freedom of press is not promised in the constitution, although the constitution does imply freedom of expression, in which the government often recognizes (Freedom House). The issue of freedom of the press is different in each state of Australia. An example is the state of Victoria, and how their laws explicitly protect the freedom of the press in their Charter of Human Rights and Responsibility document (Freedom House). 

Legislation that has changed these protections overtime: 

In the past decade, there have been multiple instances in which the Australian government has added, intervened or altered laws regarding freedom of press and protection. To begin, The National Security Legislation Amendment Act, which was approved by Congress in 2014, has made it so anyone who releases special intelligence operations information can be put into prison (Freedom House). Additionally, The Evidence Amendment Act, which was passed in 2011, protects the identity of journalists’ sources as well as the sources of bloggers and independent media organizations, however, the protection only applies to Federal cases (Freedom House).

Furthermore, In 2014, the Australian government restricted media coverage at immigration detention centers (Freedom House). If you were a journalist who wanted to cover these detention centers, you would have to sign a document that requires you to comply with all and any of their rules, regulations, and requests (Freedom House). In addition to immigration restrictions, Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister, announced that the Australian government would no longer be providing journalists with press briefings regarding border control (Freedom House). 

After the Christchurch terrorist massacre in New Zealand in 2019, the Australian parliament passed laws that took violent extremist content displayed via social media much more seriously (Digital News Report). 

Challenges that limit journalists' ability to access and report on information: 

There are two specific challenges that journalists face in Australia today. To begin, as previously mentioned, there has been a decline (6%) in the public’s trust when it comes to the media as of 2018 (Digital News Report). It is believed that because of this decline and because of a “fake news” wave in the world, over 100 journalists for Fairfax Media have been fired (The Guardian). When people have a distrust in the media, it creates an obvious problem that journalists must adapt to.  The second challenge that journalists have to face is the rise of platforms such as Google and Facebook, who have taken away the opportunity for journalists to make money (The Guardian). Advertisers would now rather have their product within a social media advertisement rather than a newspaper (The Guardian), thus having no need for journalists anymore in the first place.  These two challenges come together and create a bigger problem overall, which is the problem of unprofessional journalistic tendencies which will be spread around Australian media due to the rise of citizen-journalism (The Guardian). When it comes to economic problems regarding Australian journalism, in 2014, the Abbott government stated that it would cut funding to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation by over $175 million (Freedom House). In doing so, a number of positions in the regional programming would be eliminated (Freedom House). 

Challenges and debates around journalism in Australia:

One particular instance of debate in Australia around journalism is regarding the random firing of Michelle Guthrie, the Managing Director of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Digital News Report). The man who fired Guthrie, Justin Milne, the Chair of the ABC, resigned after receiving a great deal of criticism for the firing of Guthrie, as much of the critics believe that he fired Guthrie because she was “unpopular with the government” (Digital News Report). It is clear why the public would be upset with these allegations, and the Australian government began to look into the relationship between politics and the ABC how that relationship may hinder the integrity of the ABC as a whole (Digital News Report). After Prime Minister Scott Morrison looked into these allegations and this subject in general, he hired Ita Buttrose to chair the public broadcaster in 2019 (Digital News Report). Buttrose is an Australian journalist, businesswoman and public personality (Wiki). In doing so, the Morrison hoped to win back the trust of the Australian public, as Ita Buttrose is considered an icon within the Australian media (Digital News Report). This has been one of the most recent incidents of debate circling journalism within Australia. 

Another subject of debate is the standards of journalism within Australia (Digital News Report). For example, the popular site BuzzFeed was involved in a defamation case for targeting a government official by ‘slut-shaming’ her (Digital News Report). Another situation was when over 30 journalists were brought to court for reporting on a religious child sex abuse case (Digital News Report). It is clear to see that these situations have a grey area, and it is something the journalists in Australia have to keep in mind while they conduct their business. 

In Australia, physical and verbal attacks on journalists are rare (Freedom House).

Hopeful future:

As there are clear problems regarding journalism in Australia today, the future seems hopeful for a few reasons. To begin, the Australian government has started giving out funds for local news initiatives (Digital News Report). Along with giving money to the local news companies, scholarships for students who are interested in journalism are also being given out by the government (Digital News Report). Not only is the Australian government giving out money to help journalism in the country, but the Judith Nielsen Institute for Journalism and Ideas, a philanthropic body, was created to help journalism prosper in Australia, with both money and encouragement (Digital News Report). Furthermore, a media brand, Crikey, also launched a journalism program that helped people in regards to investigative reporting (Digital News Report). 

Media and populism:

Populists figures and media:

Pauline Hanson, a popular populist figure in Australia, is a big fan of social media, and this is because the platform gives her the ability to skip over the long-established media which previously had been paramount in her decline of popularity (Sydney Morning Herald). Although this is true, it can also be understood that the long-established media also may have helped her case at the beginning of her popularity, as “her ability to launch a new party in her own name [had] been facilitated by the enormous media attention she [had] received” (Deutchman, 1999, 35). For Hanson, some believe that her rise and her decline can both be attributed to the traditional media. Steve Lillebuen, a journalist for the Sydney Morning Herald, believes that Hanson knows how to use social media to her advantage, and how she knows how to use the power of social media to directly connect to her constituents (Sydney Morning Herald). One example of the way that Hanson is about to directly connect with her supports is the use of live streaming (Sydney Morning Herald). Hanson uses this particular technology to answer questions that her supporters may have, look at what the response is to her ideas instantly, and share moments with her supports via the live stream (Sydney Morning Herald). Pauline Hanson also uses her Twitter account, which has over 55,000 followers, to spread her ideas (Twitter), as well as her Facebook page, which has over 250,000 likes (Facebook). 

Bob Katter, a veteran in Australian politics and controversial populist, also uses social media to spread his ideas. On his Facebook page, he has around 53,000 likes (Facebook) and on his Twitter profile, he has around 20,000 followers (Twitter). Clive Palmer, the Leader of the United Australia Party, also uses social media in the same manner as Hanson and Katter. On his Twitter page, he has around 80,000 followers (Twitter), and on his Facebook page, he has around 200,000 likes (Facebook). 

[jtk1009-772-blog]

Australia’s Current and Prior Political and Social Landscape Overview

What is the system of government in Australia?

The system of government in Australia is a combination of three well-known systems; Federation, Constitutional Monarchy, and Parliamentary Democracy (The Museum of Australian Democracy). This section will be broken up into each system of government, to explain what the system means, and how it applies to Australia.

Federation:

A Federation is often described as “a political system in which at least two territorial levels of government share sovereign constitutional authority over their respective division and joint share of law-making powers” (O’Leary). This definition of Federation applies to Australia because the country has six states, each with its own government and, for the most part, their own Governor (The Museum of Australian Democracy). Each state has a two-chambered parliament, which is a branch of the government that is used to help the state government and the federal government work cooperatively (The Museum of Australian Democracy). The states make their own decisions in regards to laws and the federal government cannot override the decisions of the state unless it goes against the ideas of their Constitution (The Museum of Australian Democracy). It is clear to see the Federation aspect of Australia's government.

Constitutional Monarchy:

A Constitutional Monarchy is often described as a “system of government in which a king or queen is head of state, but laws are made and put into effect by a legislature, or a country that has this system of government” (Cambridge). The definition of a Constitutional Monarchy applies to Australia because Australia is in fact an independent nation, in shares a Monarchy with the United Kingdom (The Museum of Australian Democracy). Furthermore, Australia has a Governor-General, who is currently Governor-General Scott Morrison (BBC), and he is appointed by Queen Elizabeth II (BBC). The Governor-General oversees the six states and acts as head of the federal government (The Museum of Australian Democracy). For the reasons previously listed, it is clear that Australia can be applied to the Constitutional Monarchy system of government.

Parliamentary Democracy:

A Parliamentary Democracy is often described as “a form of representative democracy in which political power is vested in an elected legislature, but the executive and legislative branches are not separate” (Roots Of American Government). Additionally, “The elected legislature (parliament) chooses the chief executive (prime minister)” (Roots Of American Government). This type of government can be applied to Australia because Australia has a Senate and a House of Representatives, which is overseen by the Governor-General, who, as previously stated, is appointed by the Queen (The Museum of Australian Democracy). Due to these facts, it is clear that the Parliamentary Democracy does in fact apply to Australia.

Federation, Constitutional Monarchy and Parliamentary Democracy create the Westminster System:

The combination of these three systems of government together is often described as the Westminster System. The definition of the Westminster System can be explained as “a democratic parliamentary system of government modeled after that of the United Kingdom system, as used in the Palace of Westminster, the location of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The system is a series of procedures for operating a legislature. It is also used or was once used, in most Commonwealth and ex-Commonwealth nations, beginning with the Canadian provinces in the mid-19th century. It is also used in Australia, India, Ireland, Jamaica, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and Malta” (Westminster System).

What are the most significant changes in the political system over time?

Within Australia, there have been changes in the political system that are important to note. To begin, the political power in the 20th century shifted between three main political parties; The Australian Labor Party, The Liberal Party and The National Party (Fact Monster). One specific instance of this power struggle between the three parties occurred on March 1996, when the Liberal Party and The National Party came together and won the national elections (Fact Monster). There are two main reasons why this change was and still is significant. The first reason is that the Australian Labor Party was controlling Australian politics for a long thirteen years (Fact Monster). The second reason the shift is important is that the National Party and the Liberal Party won the national election by great margins (Fact Monster). This possibly suggests the dissatisfaction of the voters in regards to The Australian Labor Party.

What does Populism look like in your country?

Currently, in Australia, Queensland, one of the six states, has been the center of Populist ideas, and the reason being is because some of the most well-known Populist leaning figures come from this state (Kaltwasser, 2017, 123). Additionally, Queensland has had the best electoral support in regards to Populist ideologies (Kaltwasser, 2017, 123). The reason why some believe this is true is because of the low levels of education found in this area, as well as the low number of non-English speaking migrants, which in turn creates an environment where Populism often thrives (Kaltwasser, 2017, 123).

The most well-known Populist, Pauline Hanson, who is from the state of Queensland, is the leader of One Nation, a political party that gained momentum in the late 1990s (Kaltwasser, 2017, 124). Hanson is known for her controversial statements and the fact that she believes she is close to “the people” because she grew up in a fish and chip town (Kaltwasser, 2017, 124). While Hanson and her One Nation political party had a good start in the late 1990s, Hanson began to plummet politically due to her “out there” personality and her media attacks (Kaltwasser, 2017, 124). Although she was unsuccessfully politically at this time, she stayed in the public's eye (Kaltwasser, 2017, 124). In 2016, she surprised the country by being elected to the Senate (Kaltwasser, 2017, 124).

Another well-known Populist, Bob Katter, has been a prominent figure in Australian Populism for decades (Kaltwasser, 2017, 124). He served in the Queensland Parliament in 1974, and then made his way to the Federal Parliament in 1993 where he remains (Kaltwasser, 2017, 124). Katter ideologies connect with economic protectionism and social conservatism (Kaltwasser, 2017, 124). Additionally, he is known for his politically incorrect outbursts against various social groups (Kaltwasser, 2017, 124).

The most recent Populist figure to enter Australian politics is Clive Palmer (Kaltwasser, 2017, 125). Palmer founded the Palmer United Party (PUP) in 2013, which differs from the anti-immigration based One Nation party by being anti-major party-driven instead (Kaltwasser, 2017, 125). Palmer claimed that the politicians in Australia were too busy arguing with each other, and his party would unite the country as one again (Kaltwasser, 2017, 125). As people accused Palmer of having his ideologies all over the place, he failed in the 2013 election, and the Palmer United Party has been in disarray ever since (Kaltwasser, 2017, 125).

The fact of the matter is that all these politicians who have adopted and applied Populist ideologies in Australian politics have not been successfully electorally overall (Kaltwasser, 2017, 126). Due to this fact, it is clear that there is no widespread Populist movement in Australia, but rather small political parties that have made minuscule impact in the grand scheme of things (Kaltwasser, 2017, 127). A good way to describe Populism in Australia is that “populism is a style rather than an institutional movement” (Kaltwasser, 2017, 127).

Civil Rights in Australia

Currently, in Australia, there have been many instances of brutality and inequality in regards to children, indigenous people, and other civil rights groups. To start, indigenous children are 25 times more likely to be thrown into prison compared to children that were born in Australia (Amnesty). Within these prisons, footage has been leaked of abuse towards these children, including tear gas, choking, and solitary confinement (Amnesty). Along with abuse inside prisons, there has been footage of abuse inside youth detention centers as well (Amnesty). On the other hand, indigenous adults were 15 times more likely to be thrown into prison compared to adults born in Australia (Amnesty).

As of recently, Australia has been implementing policies that have been returning refugees back to their home countries. It has been reported that since 2013, 30 boats have been sent back to the countries in which they had departed (Amnesty). In 2017, the same policies were implemented and more and more boats were sent back to the country in which they hoped to escape (Amnesty). Additionally, in Australia, if you arrive by plane without a visa, you are jailed (Amnesty).

Although same-sex marriage is legal in Australia (Amnesty), there have been instances of inappropriate political incorrectness from politicians towards lesbian and gays, including Bob Katter, who once claimed there were no homosexuals in his electorate (Kaltwasser, 2017, 124). Additionally, he has made racial remarks about Asians, calling them “little slanty-eyed” people who were trying to persecute everyday Australians (Kaltwasser, 2017, 125). Katter is not the only Australian Populist who has made comments about Asians in Australia. Pauline Hanson once made a claim about immigration, saying that Australia is “swamped by Asians” (Kaltwasser, 2017, 124).

(23B873AM)