The politics of race and immigration in Australia: One ... · Hanson and many of her supporters regarded as at odds with Australia’s egalitarian ethos. In short, the One Nation

The politics of race and immigrationin Australia One Nation voting inthe 1998 Election

Rachel Gibson Ian McAllister and Tami Swenson

Abstract

Much has been written in a short space of time about the rapid rise andequally sharp decline of Pauline Hansonrsquos One Nation Party in AustraliaMany of these studies have alluded to the importance of the race issue forOne Nation but argued that ultimately the anti-immigrant and anti-aboriginal sentiments associated with the party failed to mobilize votersThis study examines the debate using a multilevel analysis of One Nation[ON] support in the 148 federal electorates The competing explanations forON support are tested using a combination of survey data and aggregatepolitical demographic and socio-economic statistics The results show thatrace and immigration were major factors mobilizing ON supporters andconcerns about economic insecurity were of lesser importance Conclusionsare drawn on the extent to which ONrsquos emergence corresponds to thegrowth in radical right populism in many continental European nations

Keywords Radical Right anti-immigrant parties One Nation Pauline Hanson

In contrast to most of the other advanced democracies until relativelyrecently Australia had largely avoided the politics of race and immi-gration that is most closely associated with the rise of the far right Tobe sure Australia has seen brief owerings of far right neo-Nazi typeorganizations (such as the League of Rights) particularly in the late1960s and 1970s when the White Australia policy was abolished (Moore1995) But this stream of politics even in a diluted form had neverattracted signicant votes at either the state or federal levels Thisenviable record came to an end in 1998 when the edgling One NationParty led by Pauline Hanson won almost one quarter of the votes inthe Queensland state election and almost one in ten votes in the nationalelection that followed shortly afterwards

The phenomenon of Hansonism and One Nation represents the rsttime in postwar Australian politics that race and immigration have

copy 2002 Taylor amp Francis LtdISSN 0141-9870 print1466-4356 onlineDOI 101080014198702200000028 6

Ethnic and Racial Studies Vol 25 No 5 September 2002 pp 823ndash844

become electoral issues with important implications for the future ofAustralian politics Hanson campaigned on socio-economic populismdirected towards rural workers primary producers and small businesspeople who were being disproportionately affected by increasedeconomic competition from Third World competitors Her vision was ofthe lsquoFortress Australiarsquo of the 1950s self-sufcient united and ethnicallyhomogeneous What explains the unprecedented electoral support forPauline Hanson and One Nation and what are its implications for Aus-tralian politics In this article we use the 1998 Australian Election Studyto evaluate the arguments and evidence surrounding the ON vote in the1998 federal election and to explore the importance of race-based expla-nations in accounting for its support

The rise and fall of One Nation

The formation and initial success of Pauline Hansonrsquos One Nation Partyndash from its formation in April 1997 through to the Queensland state elec-tions of June 1998 ndash took many observers of Australian politics bysurprise Hanson herself was a former Liberal Party federal electioncandidate who had been disendorsed by the party prior to the 1996election this followed comments she made in a local newspaper con-demning the special benets available to Aborigines Notwithstandingher disendorsement she was elected as an independent with a substantialswing of 193 per cent In her maiden speech in the House of Represen-tatives on 10 September 1996 Hanson continued her anti-immigrationand anti-aboriginal stance decrying lsquothe reverse racism [that] is appliedto mainstream Australians by those who promote political correctnessand those who control the various taxpayer-funded lsquoindustriesrsquo thatourish in our society servicing aboriginals multiculturalists and a hostof other minority groupsrsquo1

Hansonrsquos views about Aborigines and immigrants struck a responsivecord among Australian voters Opinion polls testing support for Hansonindicated a small but persistent core of potential voters that were respon-sive to her message2 Buoyed along by her evidently rising popularityHanson founded the One Nation Party in April 1997 The partyrsquosplatform was based on social and economic populism combining supportfor economic protectionism and state subsidized loans for farmers andsmall businesses with opposition to foreign investment large-scaleAsian immigration and gun control Not least the party sought to endthe state subsidization of ethnic and aboriginal interest groups whichHanson and many of her supporters regarded as at odds with Australiarsquosegalitarian ethos In short the One Nation Party was seen to embodythe politics of lsquoangerrsquo and the far right in a manner hitherto not witnessedin mainstream national politics (Suter 1998 Deutchmann 2000)

While ON attracted much media attention in 1997 and early 1998 it

824 Rachel Gibson Ian McAllister and Tami Swenson

was dismissed as ephemeral by the established parties Although theparty enjoyed an initial surge in support on its formation ndash attracting thesupport of nearly one in ten voters according to the opinion polls (Figure1) ndash its support declined signicantly and remained below 5 per cent forthe rest of 1997 and early 1998 This changed at the June 1998 Queens-land state elections when ON won 227 per cent of the rst preferencevote and secured eleven representatives becoming the third largestparty in the chamber At that time the party was attracting the supportof about 12 per cent of the electorate nationally a gure which remainsits peak of support

Many predicted greater success for the party in the upcoming federalelections a similar performance to its Queensland success would resultin the ON holding the balance of power in the House of Representatives(Simms and Warhurst 2000) Much domestic media and academic atten-tion focused on the federal race in anticipation of an ON breakthroughalthough the polls suggested a much lower level of support at around 5per cent Given the weight of expectation therefore the 84 per centsupport ON attracted in the lower house and the 9 per cent in the Senatewas considered a failure although better than the polls had predicted

Australiarsquos One Nation voting in 1998 825

Figure 1 Federal Voting Intention January 1997-December 1999Notes Figures are monthly averages if more than one survey was conductedSource Newspoll Market Research at http newspollcomau

The party gained only one seat in the upper house and Hanson failedto win the seat she contested in the Queensland electorate of BlairThese results it was determined signalled the beginning of the end forthe party and for the remainder of 1998 the party never managed toattract more than 5 per cent of the vote during 1999 its supportaveraged just 23 per cent

The predictions of ONrsquos demise have proved accurate Shortly afterthe federal election the party was engulfed by several high-prole defec-tions among its state representatives nancial scandals about the use ofmembersrsquo donations and in December 1999 the breakaway of a minorityto form a rival organization the City Country Alliance [CCA] Thispattern of early success and apparent disintegration however has meantthat most accounts of ONrsquos showing in the federal election have focusedon explaining the partyrsquos demise This has tended to obscure the simplefact that a signicant minority of Australian voters (about one in ten)did support ON Translated into the European context this is a level ofsupport that has generated widespread alarm when achieved by one ofthe radical right parties such as the Belgian Flemish Block or the FrenchFront National in a national election How and why did ON attract suchwidespread popular support

Explaining One Nation support

Most studies of ONrsquos support have been largely descriptive based oncommercial opinion polls (Goot 1998) geographic distribution(Reynolds 2000) or election survey data (Bean 2000) These studieshave revealed that ON supporters are more likely to be male and in blue-collar or working-class occupations In addition older voters (thosebetween 45 and 65) and those living in rural and regional Australia aredisproportionately drawn to the party Despite this evidence of a lsquocorersquoconstituency however the partyrsquos supporters are generally consideredto be more diverse than those of the other parties As Bean (2000 p 150)comments lsquoin some respects ON is perhaps best dened in terms ofthose groups that are least likely to give their support to the party the afuent professional classes with tertiary education and non-Englishspeaking backgroundrsquo Having such a broad basis of support has meantthat ON is often viewed as a party of lsquoprotestrsquo and populism rather thanone of ideological conviction (Wells 1997 Stokes 2000)

In terms of support for its policies Bean notes that ON supporterswere clearly angry about the level of unemployment and were more con-cerned about their own prospects for nding work in the future thanabout Australiarsquos overall economic performance One Nation voters alsosupported the partyrsquos opposition to gun control It was in the area of raceand immigration however where ON voters were most distinct fromother partyrsquos voters


The contrast between ONP and other voters however is vastly moremarked when we consider the immigration and race-related questions[compared with economic issues] Whether the question is to do withequal opportunities for migrants the number of migrants allowed intoAustralia links with Asia or Aboriginal issues time and again the gulfbetween ONP supporters and the rest of the electorate is huge (Bean2000 pp 148ndash9)

Race-related issues appear to be the unifying theme among the partyrsquossupporters Hanson herself had gained most publicity for her views onAsian immigration arguing in her maiden speech to parliament thatAustralia was being lsquoswamped by Asiansrsquo

Surveys certainly reveal that concerns over immigration were growingduring the 1990s As Figure 2 shows post-war opposition to immigrationactually peaked in 1993 when 70 per cent of survey respondents believedthat immigration had lsquogone too farrsquo The subsequent dip in hostility hasbeen explained through a range of factors including public perceptionsabout a decline in the numbers of immigrants entering the country sincethe election of the Liberal-National government in 1996 as well as


Figure 2 Public Opinion Opposed to Immigration 1950ndash99Notes Question wordings vary between surveys but usually refers to lsquotoomanyreducersquo or lsquogone too fargone much too farrsquoSources Goot (1984 1991) Australian Election Studies 1990ndash1998 AustralianConstitutional Referendum Study 1999

perceptions of the policy shift away from family reunion and towards theattraction of skilled migrants (Goot 2000a) Whatever the causeshowever it is clear that the 1998 election occurred at a time when around40 per cent of voters believed that too many immigrants were beingallowed into Australia A reduction on views just ve years before butstill more than twice the level of the mid-1960s

Opinions towards Aborigines have remained more stable than thosetowards immigrants Survey data from the 1980s and 1990s reveal that amajority of Australians consider government policies towards Aborig-ines have become too liberal3 In 1987 for example 59 per cent con-sidered aboriginal land rights had lsquogone too farrsquo and in 1996 56 per centshared this view Thus while the period immediately prior to the 1998election did not herald concerted opposition to government policiestowards immigrants and Aborigines there was clearly a signicantamount of negative feeling in the public at large

In addition to survey-based studies there have also been a number ofstudies that have analysed the ON vote using individual and aggregatedata Davis and Stimson (1998) examined ONrsquos vote in the 1998 Queens-land election matching it to census district data Their results showedthat it was electorates on the periphery of regional urban centres charac-terized by large numbers of blue-collar workers small aboriginal popu-lations and high unemployment that were most likely to supportHanson These ndings led Davis and Stimson (1998 p 72) to concludethat the ON vote was an lsquourban-fringe phenomenonrsquo caused by lsquoareaction to the fear of unemployment and underemployment which hasresulted from economic restructuringrsquo They concluded that such feelingswere particularly strong in these areas

Other models have probed economic explanations in more depthHansonrsquos message of economic protectionism is considered to resonatevery strongly with small business owners and farmers who have sufferedfrom the opening up of the Australian economy to global competitioninitiated by Labour during the 1980s The consequences of global com-petition for regional Australia have been major job losses and the with-drawal of many services the resulting dissatisfaction is considered to bea primary factor in Hansonrsquos support (Moore 1997 see also Brett 1998)Similarly McAllister and Bean (2000) found that economic discontentmotivated defection by major party voters to ON but that race andethnic issues were of greater concern

Money (1999) provides the most extensive analysis of the role of racein the 1998 federal election and for ONrsquos vote Her analysis nds thatON support in marginal seats with high numbers of immigrant voterswas signicantly lower than in seats where the immigrant vote was notdecisive to the outcome These ndings she argues indicate that themajor parties responding to the threat of immigrant votes going againstthem downplayed or even delegitimized ON to prevent loss of support


ON she concludes failed to capitalize on the race issue because themajor parties (and particularly the Liberals) changed the focus of debateto economic issues This change in strategy was the result of the Queens-land Liberalsrsquo humiliating loss in the 1998 state election which wasattributed to the partyrsquos leaders pandering to the Hanson vote Forexample the Liberal leader John Howard had initially refused tocondemn Hansonrsquos criticism of welfare privileges for Aborigines andboth the Liberal and National parties had urged their supporters to givetheir second preference votes to ON4

In addition to studies of the effects of economic insecurity politicaldissatisfaction and racial prejudice in promoting support for ON theeffects of the media on the partyrsquos fortunes have also been investi-gated (Deutchman and Ellison 1999 Scalmer 1999 Goot 2000b)While the traditional print and electronic media often denigrated ONin their coverage Goot reports that talk radio and the tabloids playeda key role at least initially in boosting Hansonrsquos support This is inline with the role of talk radio in the United States in promotingsupport for the radical right Lastly discussion has also focused on thesociocultural issues that may be at the root of Hansonrsquos success in herattack on elite-driven political correctness which has come todominate political debate in Australia as it has done in most of theadvanced democracies (Lynch and Reavell 1997 Ahluwalia andMcCarthy 1998)

At the bivariate level evidence to support the explanations for ONsupport put forward above nd strong support There were obviouslywidespread feelings of economic insecurity in the 1998 election exacer-bated by perceptions that there were fewer job opportunities in thelabour market and a reduced social welfare system that might providea safety net in the event of retrenchment (McAllister and Bean 2000)On three of the four questions relating to economic insecurity Table 1shows that ONP voters expressed the strongest opinions of any of theparty voters The sole exception is concern that a family member mightbecome unemployed where slightly more Labor than ON votersexpressed this view Clearly economic insecurity was one componentfuelling support for ON

Notwithstanding the importance of economic insecurity what differ-entiated ONP voters from any of the other three parties was their viewson Aborigines immigrants and law enforcement More than nine out ofevery ten ON voters believed that government policies towards Abo-rigines had lsquogone too farrsquo only Liberal-National voters come close to thisgure with about six out of every ten holding this view Similarly a largemajority of ON voters believed that policies towards immigrants hadlsquogone too farrsquo again in marked contrast to the voters for the other threeparties Finally law enforcement in general but gun control in particu-lar was a major issue for ON 56 per cent believed that the governmentrsquos


control of rearms had lsquogone too farrsquo almost three times the proportionof Labor voters who took the same view

One Nation and the mobilization of racial prejudice

Although a range of explanations for ON support have been identiedthere is general agreement that between June and October 1998 theactions of the major parties and of Hanson herself undermined ONrsquosability to mobilize this new found constituency Deutchman (2000 p 50)has summed up this view in her statement that lsquo in two years we seethe spectacular rise and incredible fall of a political movementrsquo Simi-larly although Leach Ward and Stokes (2000 pp 4ndash5) point out that


Table 1 Votersrsquo Socio-Economic Opinions in the 1998 Election

(Percent)

Lab Lib-Nat Dem ONP

Economic insecurityVery worried family member unemployed 35 15 22 31Very hard to get job 53 26 47 56Best jobs denitely in the past 45 28 34 57Household standard of living fallen since 1996 62 25 49 65

Aborigines (lsquogone too farrsquo)Aboriginal land rights 43 63 39 92Government help for aborigines 44 61 37 93

Immigrants (lsquogone too farrsquo)Equal opportunity for migrants 30 32 24 70Number of migrants allowed into Australia 39 42 36 90

Law enforcementGovernment control of rearms(gone too far) 19 22 14 56Stiffer sentences for lawbreakers(strongly agree) 37 38 29 72

(N) (719) (766) (100) (116)

Notes lsquoHow worried are you that in the next 12 months you or someone else in your house-hold might be out of work and looking for a job for any reasonrsquo lsquoIn your community thesedays how easy is it for someone who is trying to nd a job to get a good job at good wagesrsquolsquoWhen it comes to the availability of good jobs for Australian workers some say that thebest years are behind us Others say that the best years are yet to come What do youthinkrsquo lsquoThinking back to the federal election in 1996 when John Howard won against PaulKeating would you say that since then the following have increased or fallen your ownstandard of livingrsquo lsquoThe statements below indicate some of the changes that have beenhappening in Australia over the years Aboriginal land rights government help forAborigines equal opportunities for migrants the number of migrants allowed intoAustralia government controls of rearmsrsquo lsquoHere are some statements about generalsocial concerns Please say whether you strongly agree agree disagree or strongly disagree people who break the law should be given stiffer sentencesrsquoSource 1998 Australian Election Study

the underlying anxieties stirred up by ON cannot be ignored they arguethat lsquofailure in the 1998 federal election plunged the party into disorderrsquoand constituted a lsquoresounding defeatrsquo

While it is undeniable that the party experienced a major reversal inthe federal election it had still managed to politicize the issue of therace for the rst time in postwar Australian politics Indeed the import-ance of racial prejudice in mobilizing voters is clearly evident from thepoll evidence cited above Furthermore while Moneyrsquos analysis (1999)indicates that the size of the ethnic vote was a strong disincentive for theestablished parties to politicize race her results also show that in areaswhere both the aboriginal population and unemployment were high theON vote increased signicantly Intriguingly Davis and Stimsonrsquosanalysis of the Queensland vote nds that large aboriginal and immi-grant populations in an electorate were associated with lower votes forON Thus there is evidence suggesting immigrant and aboriginal popu-lation size does form a signicant explanatory variable in understandingONrsquos support These conclusions however have all been based onaggregate data a feature that weakens their conclusions since it opensthem up to the ecological fallacy

The interpretation of ONrsquos demise as a failure to mobilize voters onracial prejudice corresponds to Jackmanrsquos (1998) view that race has beenneglected in studies of the ideological make-up of the Australian publicWhile social scientists have largely overlooked the topic Jackman showsthat racial prejudice forms a core element of popular political views andthat parties making anti-immigrant or racist appeals would have con-siderable potential support McAllister (1993) supports this interpre-tation by showing mounting popular concern among the electorate tofurther immigration and about its long-term consequences for economicand political stability (see also Betts 1996a 1996b) McAllister arguesthat these views have been stied by the postwar bipartisan consensusto exclude immigration and race issues from the electoral agenda Thisrestraint however is largely the result of strategic cost-benet calcu-lations by the parties rather than any great moral deliberations (see alsoHardcastle and Parkin 1991 Jupp 1991 Grattan 1993 Rubenstein 1993)

In the decade preceding the formation of ON there were increasingsigns of a breach in this bipartisan consensus This can be traced to 1984when a prominent historian Geoffrey Blainey criticized the high levelsof Asian immigration as running ahead of public opinion Although poli-ticians criticised Blainey John Howard (then leader of the Liberal oppo-sition) was seen as picking up on Blaineyrsquos theme when he argued for abetter balancing of Asian immigration in a speech in 1988 (Ozolins1994) However such is the power of the ethnic vote and its importancein any national election that Howard himself was forced to withdraw hisviews shortly before the 1996 election In effect then bipartisanship onrace and ethnicity remained intact until the formation of ON in 1997


The key question that we are seeking to examine therefore is how farracial prejudice was a primary motivating factor behind ON support Itis our contention that while the dominant impression of ONrsquos perform-ance in the 1998 federal election is one of failure due to its inability tosustain its previous success at the state level this conclusion requiresfurther scrutiny While the party might appear to have disappeared if itsucceeded in mobilizing latent racial prejudice to new levels in a nationalelection then its political legacy may be far more subtle and far reachingthan is presently acknowledged Such mobilization would represent anew chapter in Australian politics and one that opens the door to thecontinued and expanded use of race-based appeals in future elections

Modelling support for One Nation

Two basic types of attitudinal opposition to immigrants within thenational electorates of Western Europe can be identied derived fromthe sociological and psychological literature on symbolic racism and real-istic conict theories of racial prejudice (Allport 1954 McConahay andHough 1976 Kinder and Sears 1981 Bobo 1983 Knigge 1996 Gibson2001)5 The rst type of attitudinal opposition ndash identity-based opposi-tion ndash centres on simple negative stereotypes of immigrants andexpresses itself through a dislike of their geographic and social proxim-ity The second type ndash interest-based opposition ndash is based on more subtlereasoning about immigrantsrsquo impact on jobs the economy crime levelsand welfare expenditure While both types of opposition are expectedto be linked to anti-immigrant party support interest-based oppositionis expected to be more easily mobilized since its concerns ndash unemploy-ment crime and welfare ndash are more likely to be considered the provinceof government action than the identity-based issues such as inter-racialmarriage and having an immigrant as onersquos boss

To translate these two forms of latent hostility to immigrants intovoting behaviour we identify three non-mutually exclusive explanationsderived from political science explanations of far-right voting Firstgrievance intensication theory argues that individuals will engage inanti-immigrant voting when their feelings of resentment towards immi-grants or an ethnic outgroup intensify to a critical point The twodifferent types of opposition will be intensied by different factorsIdentity-based opposition would need only a greater number of immi-grants to be visible to intensify whereas interest-based opposition wouldrequire an additional perception of a decline in onersquos own personal socio-economic security or that of the country as a whole

Second political opportunism contends that while grievances towardsimmigrants may intensify and lead some to support an anti-immigrantparty for most people the hardening of attitudes although a necessaryprecondition for political expression is not sufcient Such mobilization


requires the intervention of a political opportunity in the shape of alsquospacersquo on the political spectrum for the anti-immigrant party to emergeThis opportunity is usually considered greatest when the establishedparties particularly the mainstream party of the right have dropped theissue or are perceived as weak in the area of immigration policy andthere is a left-wing government in power (Husbands 1988 Kitschelt andMcGann 1996) The long-standing commitment by both the Australianparties not to politicize immigration means that this interpretationneeds to be modied and in fact reversed It is hypothesized that thepolitical opportunity for an anti-immigrant party to do well in Australiamay in fact be greatest when one or both parties are talking about immi-gration With race-based electoral appeals enjoying new legitimacy aparty such as ON is strategically placed to claim ownership of the immi-gration issue

Finally the echo chamber effect is related to political opportunity butargues that voting for an anti-immigrant party is simply a product of indi-vidual perceptions of the legitimacy of this type of behaviour Thusanyone feeling antagonistic towards immigrants is susceptible toengaging in anti-immigrant voting it is simply when individuals know ofor hear other people that are prepared to engage in this type of behav-iour that they become more likely to do so Once again this type ofmobilization might be more common among those expressing interest-based opposition since it exhibits a greater degree of social acceptabilityin its objections to immigrants than pure identity-based considerations

The logic of these three arguments means that they are best under-stood to form a continuum for the mobilization of anti-immigrant votingin society Core opponents of immigration need only their grievances tointensify for them to become politically active whereas others with lessrigidly held beliefs require a political opportunity to emerge before theywill seek to express their preferences politically Finally those who aremore weakly motivated by racial prejudice will act on these views oncethey perceive it as legitimate to do so that is when others around thembegin to express similar views publicly These explanations are not thesole or even the most important factors for understanding ONrsquos 1998electoral support we simply isolate them as our principal theoreticalfocus As was noted above there was clearly a range of factors thatunderlay the partyrsquos support and these will be taken into account in theempirical analysis Our major concern however is whether racial preju-dice contributed to ON support and if so how the mobilization of thatprejudice took place

Data and methods

In order to test these theories of anti-immigrant voting a multilevelanalysis of ON party support in the 1998 election was conducted6 The


dependent variable is the reported vote for ON in the House of Repre-sentatives election and the unit of analysis is the individual survey respon-dent within hisher electoral division The independent variables includedemographic controls for unemployment age working class hand gunownership and gender (coded for male) individual anti-immigrant atti-tudes economic vulnerability immigrant issue salience and dissatisfactionwith democracy and contextual effects within the electorate such as theunemployment rate percentage of recent immigrants aggregated atti-tudes percentage rural and ON political opportunity In using multilevelanalysis we avoid the ecological fallacy encountered in previous analysessince both aggregate and individual-level data are examined Thus anyassertions about individual motivation do not have to be inferred

The grievance intensication explanation is tested by examiningwhether there is a strong and positive relationship between ON supportand the two types of opposition to immigrants identity and interest-based As these resentments increase are people more likely to vote forON The individual level anti-immigrant attitudes are identied usingfactor analysis (see Appendix) The anti-immigrant opposition is dividedinto two types conforming to our identity or culturally-based oppositionand the interest-based form of opposition The variables forming theinterest-based factor of opposition were whether immigrants increasedcrime whether immigrants were good for the economy and whetherimmigrants take jobs from Australian-born citizens The variablesforming the identity-based factor of opposition were whether one wouldmind if onersquos boss was Asian and if a relative married an Asian Inaddition we look at the contextual conditions surrounding ONrsquos vote formore objective evidence of grievance intensication Specically thepercentage of immigrants within the electorate during the past ve yearsand the percentage unemployment rate in 1997

The political opportunity explanation centres on the extent to whichthe major partiesrsquo actions are creating a political space for ON We haveargued that if the established parties introduce race and immigrationissues to the electoral competition the chances for ON are improvedconsiderably since it works to raise peoplersquos concerns about the issueand also legitimize ONrsquos appeal This argument is tested using a variablefrom Money (1998) that indicates the likelihood of the major partiesplaying the race card in the election The variable is a ratio that dividesthe proportion of the electorate that is immigrant by the vote margin inthe 1996 election (Firebaugh and Gibbs 1985) The reasoning here is thatcandidates in very marginal seats where there is a decisive immigrantvoting bloc would be far less inclined to make negative references toimmigrants or be seen to be courting the ON vote Indeed in such asituation the major parties might actually engage in strategies thatdelegitimize ON as racist to prevent mobilization of their vote Thus thevariable is hypothesized to have a negative and signicant relationship


to the vote for ON if the theory is correct Higher scores indicate agreater likelihood of immigrants affecting the outcome of the electionand thus a lower propensity for the major parties to play on racial fearsto gain votes thereby lowering ONrsquos appeal Lower scores by contrastmean that the immigrant bloc is less decisive to the outcome of the racethe parties therefore would be more likely to play the race card if theythought it would improve their chances thus increasing the legitimacyof an ON appeal7

Finally the echo chamber or perceptions of legitimacy thesis isexamined using contextual evidence The issue here is whether higherlevels of either type of anti-immigrant attitudes across an electoraldivision actually stimulate more people to engage in ON voting regard-less of their own feelings of resentment towards immigrants Thisargument is tested by a variable that measures the aggregate levels ofthe different types of opposition in the electoral divisions

Other individual level attitudinal variables that are considered import-ant in predicting the ON vote in addition to anti-immigrant feelingsinclude economic vulnerability anti-aboriginal sentiment and demo-cratic dissatisfaction Anti-aboriginal sentiment is measured using factorscores from a factor analysis of ve questions concerning Aborigines (seeAppendix Table B) Democratic dissatisfaction is included in the analysisto gauge the potential degree of protest voting In other words an indi-vidual may vote for ON as an expression of protest against the currentsystem and dominant political parties The measurement of this variableis from a question that asks the survey respondent to rate onersquos satis-faction with democracy in Australia Similarly economic vulnerability isan expression of economic dissatisfaction and is coded as a dummyvariable for those who feel the best jobs were denitely in the past Inaddition the salience of the immigration issue is measured as a dummyvariable coded for those who stated that immigration was a very import-ant election issue This variable was included as a measure for the morediffuse fears and resentments that people might have about immigrantsthat are not captured by the specic types of opposition

Control variables are included to measure the demographic and socio-economic traits that have been shown to be strongly associated withextreme-right-party support in Australia and elsewhere These traitsinclude being male age unemployed working class and hand gunownership In addition an indicator of geographic residence is also intro-duced by including the percentage of people classied as rural in a givenfederal electorate

Results

The overall model allows for the testing of the three explanations of anti-immigrant voting outlined above controlling for the other variables


examined in the existing literature as linked to ON support The resultsof the analysis are presented in Table 2 Overall it appears that it is theindividual level characteristics that have the greatest power in deter-mining the ON vote rather than any contextual effects other than livingin a rural area More specically feeling strongly dissatised with thestate of Australian democracy and resentful of immigrants due to theirnegative socio-economic impact alongside a more diffuse perception ofimmigration as a problem and hostility towards Aborigines made onesignicantly more likely to support Hanson in the 1998 federal election

The maximum likelihood parameter estimates presented for themodel can be interpreted in the same way as one would interpret regularlogistic regression parameter estimates (Kennedy 1998) The probabili-ties discussed in the text are constructed holding the other variables attheir corresponding mean and modal categories In statistical terms theseresults translate into saying that the average individual in the averageelectorate has a 002 (or 2 per cent) probability of voting for ON Themarginal increase in this probability of voting for ON for each of signi-cant explanatory variables varies For the average individual with thehighest level of interest-based opposition there is a 008 (8 per cent)probability of ON vote support This represents the largest marginalincrease in the probability of ON support when compared with the othersignicant variables in the model An average person who is dissatisedwith democracy has a 006 (6 per cent) probability of ON support whichis the same probability of ON support as the average person with thehighest level of aboriginal opposition and the average person whoresides in the most rural electorate The average person who considersimmigration a salient issue in the election has a 005 probability Cumula-tively these ndings indicate that a person who is dissatised withdemocracy views immigration as a salient issue resides in the most ruralelectorate and has the highest levels of interest-based opposition toimmigrants and hostility to aboriginals has a 078 probability (or 78 percent chance) of supporting ON in the house election

In terms of our three lsquopathwaysrsquo to anti-immigrant voting the resultstranslate into support for the grievance intensication against immi-grants particularly in terms of material interests As an individualrsquos levelof interest-based anti-immigrant opposition increases so does their like-lihood of support for ON The same does not apply however to apersonrsquos increasing symbolic or cultural fears about immigrants Further-more the ndings do not support the political opportunity structure andecho chamber arguments ndash the ratio variable (designed to indicate thelikely downplaying of race issues by the major parties) has no signicantrelationship to the support level that ON receives nor do higher overalllevels of either of the different types of opposition to immigrants withina federal electorate8

Signicantly while socio-economic grievances against immigrants


played a major role in determining support for ON higher levels ofunemployment or numbers of recent migrants were not signicantlyrelated to ON support Equally perceptions of economic vulnerabilityunconnected to the immigrant population also proved insignicant inpredicting ON support Thus it would appear that these grievancesagainst immigrantsrsquo impact on jobs and living conditions in general whileproviding a strong stimulus to vote for ON do not need to intensify ata more objective or environmental level in order to spark such behav-iour Or to argue this another way a sense of economic vulnerabilitydoes propel the vote for ON but only when connected in some way withthe immigrant population

Conclusion

Throughout the postwar years Australia has avoided the tensions that stem from having a large immigrant population that is racially and


Table 2 A Multilevel Analysis of One Nation Support in 1998

Variable Parameter Standard Sig Error level

Intercept ndash3780 0186 0000Demographic Control Variables

Male 0669 0219 0003Age ndash0004 0007 0580Gun Owner 0225 0270 0404Working Class 0411 0219 0060

Individual AttitudesImmigrant Issue Salience 0942 0224 0000Interest-based immigrant opposition 0500 0095 0000Identity-based immigrant opposition ndash0098 0084 0246Aborigine opposition 0309 0070 0000Economic vulnerability 0128 0308 0678Democratic dissatisfaction 1336 0221 0000

Grievance IntensicationUnemployment rate ndash0030 0024 0222Recent Immigrants (Per cent) ndash0028 0071 0691

Political OpportunityImmigrant Per cent vote margin 1996 0001 0009 0905

Echo Chamber EffectAggregate Interest-based opposition ndash0056 0284 0845Aggregate Identity-based opposition 0203 0311 0514

Socioeconomic Context Control VariableRural Percentage 0018 0008 0028

Log Likelihood Ratio ndash2554420Notes Multilevel analysis predicting ON support in the 1998 federal election See text andAppendix for details of variables scoring and methodSource 1998 Australian Election Study

ethnically diverse together with a historically disadvantaged indigenouspopulation Three reasons help to account for this First Australiarsquos com-parative prosperity arbitrated wages system and the lack of inheritedprivilege have meant there has been no underclass and those with theskills and motivation to gain economic advancement can largely do soSecond successive governments have funded a comprehensive andsophisticated set of programs designed to ensure the smooth settlementof new immigrants Third and perhaps most importantly there has beena bipartisan consensus within the political elite to ensure that issues ofrace and ethnicity are not placed on the electoral agenda Whateverstrong feelings may exist within the electorate on such issues both sidesof politics have agreed not to make them matters of partisan debate(Jupp 1991 Jupp and Kabala 1993)

The rise of Pauline Hansonrsquos One Nation and the unprecedented elec-toral support that it attracted seemed to break this bipartisan consen-sus For the rst time in the postwar years the issues of race andimmigration were placed on the electoral agenda in this case the 1998federal election That One Nation has subsequently collapsed or thatthe main parties refused to enter the electoral debate on these issues donot diminish the profound consequences this has for Australian politicsSuccessive polls have indicated that the concerns that One Nation raisednotably those of Asian immigration and special benets for Aboriginesresonate with very large numbers of voters Many of these voters decidednot to vote for One Nation because they felt that the partyrsquos policies todeal with these problems were inadequate Clearly then the potentialfor a future electoral breakthrough by a similar party with populist goalsremains undiminished

Since the 1998 election a variety of studies have been conducted toanalyse ONrsquos bases of support among voters One interpretation hasbeen that ON support was largely economic in nature among those whowere economically insecure and most affected by foreign competitionand globalization The second interpretation has cast ON support morein terms of the issues of race and immigration Using multilevel analysesapplied to nationally representative survey data collected at the time ofthe election the results presented here suggest that the partyrsquos supportwas largely based on race and immigration issues Specically it appearsthat attitudes towards these issues divided into three separate dimen-sions ndash fears about immigrants encroaching on onersquos material well-beinga more diffuse sense of discomfort with overall levels of immigrationand an anti-Aborigine sentiment While there is some evidence thateconomic concerns did motivate ON voters it seems that they did soonly when linked to anti-immigrant feelings

Comparing these ndings with those from Western Europe a morediverse mix of forces appears to mobilize supporters for the radical-rightin European countries than is the case in Australia While voters in both


regions harbour socio-economic grievances towards immigrants and ahigh degree of political dissatisfaction cultural and racial animositiesprovide a stronger stimulus for those in Europe (Harris 1993 Gibson ampSwenson 1999) In addition broader trends such as the size of the foreignpopulation and downturns in the economy have also been consistentlylinked with the ebb and ow of radical-right voting (Jackman andVolpert 1996 Knigge 1998) Of course there is clearly cross-countryvariation within this generalized picture some parties in WesternEurope such as the Scandinavian Progress parties have very clearlyavoided exploiting the issues of cultural difference surrounding immi-gration preferring to concentrate on the economic dimension instead(Harmel and Svasand 2000) For other parties such as the ItalianNorthern League and the Belgian Flemish Block opposition to immi-grants runs as a secondary concern to far deeper and more fundamentalintra-national conicts between ethnic groups

As with all these parties therefore One Nation clearly exhibits nation-specic features However it would also seem that the rationale behindOne Nation does correspond to that of far-right groups that are activein Western Europe in regard to material grievances with immigrants anddeep frustration with the current political situation The rise and fall ofOne Nation was therefore not an Australia-specic phenomenon likethe radical-right in Western Europe the support that emerged for ONcould occur again and has the potential under various party labels andlinked to different political personalities to mobilize voters with particu-lar social and economic grievances

Acknowledgements

The 1998 Australian Election Study was conducted by Clive Bean DavidGow and Ian McAllister The survey was funded by the AustralianResearch Council and the data are available from the Social ScienceData Archive at The Australian National University An earlier versionof the paper was delivered at the 2000 Annual Meetings of the AmericanPolitical Science Association Washington DC Thanks go to the Aus-tralian Department of Training and Youth Affairs for the InternationalResearcher Exchange Fellowship (IREX) that enabled Dr Gibson tocarry out the research in Australia Our thanks also to two anonymousreviewers from this journal for their constructive comments the usualdisclaimer applies

Notes

1 Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates House of Representatives volume 192 10September 1996 p 38602 Some of the polls were conducted before the formal establishment of One Nation


For a comprehensive survey of the poll results before and after ONrsquos formation see Goot(1998)3 The sources are the Australian Election Studies 1987ndash1998 and the AustralianConstitutional Referendum Study 1999 The question was lsquoPlease say whether you thinkthe change has gone much too far gone too far about right not gone far enough not gonenearly far enough Aboriginal land rightsrsquo4 Australiarsquos system of preferential voting for the lower house is based on singlemember constituencies voters list their preferences for all of the candidates in order withthe rst candidate reaching 50 per cent or more of the vote being elected In a contestwhere no single candidate gains 50 per cent or more in the rst count the distribution ofsecond and subsequent preferences is crucial In general the system favours the majorparties5 The model we advance to explain ONrsquos support in the 1998 federal election is basedon theories of anti-immigrant prejudice and voting for the West European far-right byGibson (2001) and Gibson amp Swenson (1999)6 The 1998 Australian Election Study survey was a random sample of the electoraterepresentative of all states and territories conducted immediately after the October 1998federal election The survey was based on a self-completion questionnaire yielding 1897completed responses representing an effective response rate of 58 per cent See BeanGow and McAllister (1999) for further details7 This variable is based on an assumption that all major parties involved have votemaximization as their primary goal and would therefore be equally disinclined to play therace card in the face of a large immigrant voting bloc Such an assumption may be compro-mised in certain electorates where ethnic voting blocs have systematically failed to providesupport for certain major party candidates and there would be no expectation of gainingtheir vote However such electorates are assumed to be few8 The ndings for the political opportunity variable may potentially be a result of itssimple operationalization which may not address some of the complexities discussed inNote 7

References

AHLUWALIA PAL and MCCARTHY GREG 1998 lsquo ldquoPolitical Correctnessrdquo PaulineHanson and the construction of Australian identityrsquo Australian Journal of Public Adminis-tration vol 57 pp 79ndash85ALLPORT GORDON W 1954 The Nature of Prejudice London Addison-WesleyBEAN CLIVE 2000 lsquoNationwide Electoral Support for One Nation in the 1998 FederalElectionrsquo in Michael Leach Geoffrey Stokes and Ian Ward (eds) The Rise and Fall ofOne Nation St Lucia Queensland University of Queensland Press pp 136ndash52BEAN CLIVE GOW DAVID and MCALLISTER IAN 1999 The 1998 AustralianElection Study Canberra Social Sciences Data ArchiveBETTS KATHARINE 1996a lsquoImmigration and public opinion in Australiarsquo People andPlace vol 4 pp 9ndash20mdashmdash 1996b lsquoPatriotism immigration and the 1996 Australian Electionrsquo People and Placevol 4 pp 27ndash38BOBO LAWRENCE 1983 lsquoWhitesrsquo opposition to busing symbolic racism or realisticgroup conictrsquo Journal of Personality and Social Psychology vol 45 pp 1196ndash210 BRETT JUDITH 1998 lsquoRepresenting the unrepresented One Nation and the formationof the Labor Partyrsquo in Tony Abbott (ed) Two Nations The Causes and Effects of the Riseof the One Nation Party in Australia Melbourne Bookman pp 26ndash37DAVIS REX and STIMSON ROBERT 1998 lsquoDisillusionment and disenchantment at thefringe explaining the geography of the One Nation Party vote at the Queensland ElectionrsquoPeople and Place vol 6 pp 69ndash82


DEUTCHMAN IVA ELLEN 2000 lsquoPauline Hanson and the rise and fall of the radicalright in Australiarsquo Patterns of Prejudice vol 34 pp 49ndash62DEUTCHMAN IVA ELLEN and ELLISON ANNE 1999 lsquoA star is born the rollercoaster ride of Pauline Hanson in the newsrsquo Media Culture and Society vol 21 pp 33ndash50FIREBAUGH GLENN and GIBBS JACK P 1985 lsquoUserrsquos guide to ratio variablesrsquoAmerican Sociological Review vol 50 October pp 713ndash22GIBSON RACHEL K 2001 The Growth of Anti-immigrant Parties in Western EuropeLampeter Wales Edwin Mellen Press (forthcoming)GIBSON RACHEL K and SWENSON TAMI 1999 lsquoThe Politicization of Anti-ImmigrantAttitudes in Western Europe Examining the Mobilization of Prejudice Among the Support-ers of Extreme Right-Wing Parties in EU Member States 1988 and 1994rsquo Paper presentedat the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association Boston MAGOOT MURRAY 1998 lsquoHansonrsquos heartland whorsquos for One Nation and whyrsquo in TonyAbbott (ed) Two Nations The Causes and Effects of the Rise of the One Nation Party inAustralia Melbourne Bookman pp 51ndash73 mdashmdash 2000a lsquoMore ldquoRelaxed and Comfortablerdquo Public opinion on immigration underHowardrsquo People and Place vol 8 pp 32ndash49mdashmdash 2000b lsquoPauline Hanson and the power of the mediarsquo in Michael Leach GeoffreyStokes and Ian Ward (eds) The Rise and Fall of One Nation St Lucia QueenslandUniversity of Queensland Press pp 115ndash35GRATTAN MICHELLE 1993 lsquoImmigration and the Australian Labor Partyrsquo in JamesJupp and Kabala Marie (eds) The Politics of Australian Immigration CanberraAustralian Government Publication Service pp 127ndash143 HARDCASTLE LEONIE and PARKIN ANDREW 1991 lsquoImmigration policyrsquo inChristine Jennett and Randall G Stewart (eds) Hawke and Australian Public PolicyMelbourne Macmillan pp 315ndash38HARRIS GEOFF 1993 The Dark Side of Europe Edinburgh Edinburgh University PressHARMEL ROBERT and LARS SVAringSAND 2000 The Institutionalization of ProtestParties Rightwing Parties in Denmark and Norway unpublished book manuscriptHUSBANDS CHRISTOPHER T 1988 lsquoThe dynamic of racial exclusion and expulsionracist politics in Western Europersquo European Journal of Political Research vol 16 pp 688ndash700JACKMAN SIMON 1998 lsquoPauline Hanson the mainstream and political elites the placeof race in Australian political ideologyrsquo Australian Journal of Political Science vol 33pp 167ndash86 JACKMAN ROBERT W and VOLPERT KARIN 1996 lsquoConditions favouring parties ofthe extreme right in Western Europersquo British Journal of Political Science vol 26 no 4pp 501ndash22JUPP JAMES and KABALA MARIE (eds) 1993 The Politics of Australian ImmigrationCanberra Australian Government Publication Service JUPP JAMES 1991 Immigration Sydney Sydney University Press KENNEDY PETER 1998 A Guide to Econometrics 2nd edn Cambridge MA MIT PressKINDER DONALD R and SEARS DAVID O 1981 lsquoPrejudice and politics symbolicracism vs racial threats to the good lifersquo Journal of Personality and Social Psychology vol40 pp 414ndash31KITSCHELT HERBERT with ANTHONY J MCGANN 1996 The Radical Right InWestern Europe A Comparative Analysis Ann Arbor University of MichiganKNIGGE PIA 1996 lsquoAttitudes Toward Immigration Policies Among Four WesternEuropean Publics A Case for Ethnic Prejudice or Group Conictrsquo Paper presented at theannual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association Chicago IL mdashmdash 1998 lsquoThe ecological correlates of right-wing extremism in Western EuropersquoEuropean Journal of Political Research vol 34 pp 249ndash79LEACH MICHAEL STOKES GEOFFREY and WARD IAN 2000 (eds) The Rise andFall of One Nation St Lucia Queensland University of Queensland Press


LYNCH TONY and REAVELL RONNIE 1997 lsquoThrough the looking glass HowardHanson and the Politics of ldquoPolitical Correctnessrdquo rsquo in Bligh Grant (ed) Pauline HansonOne Nation and Australian Politics Armidale NSW Australia University of New EnglandPress pp 29ndash49 MCALLISTER IAN and BEAN CLIVE 2000 lsquoThe electoral politics of economic reformin Australia The 1998 Electionrsquo Australian Journal of Political Science vol 35 pp 383ndash400MCALLISTER IAN 1999 lsquoTax reform not race debate the October 1998 AustralianFederal Electionrsquo Government and Opposition vol 34 pp 44ndash58mdashmdash 1993 lsquoImmigration Bipartisanship and Public Opinionrsquo in James Jupp and MarieKabala (eds) The Politics of Australian Immigration Canberra Australian GovernmentPublication Service pp 161ndash80MCCONAHAY J B and HOUGH J C 1976 lsquoSymbolic Racismrsquo Journal of Social Issuesvol 32 pp 23ndash45MONEY JEANNETTE 1999 lsquoXenophobia and xenophilia Pauline Hanson and the coun-terbalancing of electoral incentives in Australiarsquo People and Place vol 7 pp 7ndash19 MOORE TOD 1997 lsquoEconomic rationalism and economic nationalismrsquo in Bligh Grant(ed) Pauline Hanson One Nation and Australian Politics Armidale NSW AustraliaUniversity of New England Press pp 50ndash62MOORE ANDREW 1995 The Right Road A History of Right-Wing Politics in AustraliaOxford Oxford University PressOZOLINS ULDIS 1994 lsquoImmigration and Immigrantsrsquo in Judith Brett James A Gillespieand Murray Goot (eds) Developments in Australian Politics Melbourne Macmillanpp 202ndash16RUBENSTEIN COLIN 1993 lsquoImmigration and the Liberal Party of Australiarsquo in JamesJupp and Marie Kabala (eds) The Politics of Australian Immigration Canberra AustralianGovernment Publication Service pp 144ndash60SCALMER SEAN 1999 lsquoThe production of a founding event the case of PaulineHansonrsquos Maiden Parliamentary Speechrsquo Theory and Event vol 32 lthttp directpressjhuedujournalstheory_amp_eventv00332scalmerhtmlgtSIMMS MARIAN and WARHURST JOHN 2000 (eds) Howardrsquos Agenda St LuciaQueensland Queensland University PressSTOKES GEOFFREY 2000 lsquoOne Nation and Australian populismrsquo in Michael LeachGeoffrey Stokes and Ian Ward (eds) The Rise and Fall of One Nation St Lucia Queens-land University of Queensland Press pp 23ndash41SUTER KEITH 1998 lsquoPolitics with a Dash of Vinegarrsquo The World Today July pp 188ndash90REYNOLDS PAUL L 2000 lsquoOne Nationrsquos electoral support in Queensland the 1998State and Federal Elections comparedrsquo in Michael Leach Geoffrey Stokes and Ian Ward(eds) The Rise and Fall of One Nation St Lucia Queensland University of QueenslandPress pp 153ndash169WELLS DAVID 1997 lsquoOne Nation and the politics of populismrsquo in Bligh Grant (ed)Pauline Hanson One Nation and Australian Politics Armidale NSW Australia Universityof New England Press

RACHEL GIBSON is Deputy Director of the ACSPRI Centre forSocial Research in Canberra AustraliaADDRESS ACSPRI Centre for Social Research Research School ofSocial Sciences The Australian National University Canberra ACT0200 E-mail rachelgibsonanueduauIAN MCALLISTER is Director of the Research School of SocialSciences at the Australian National University Canberra E-mailianmcallisteranueduau


TAMI SWENSON is a Research Associate at the Center for Demo-graphic and Socioeconomic Research and Education Texas AampM Uni-versityADDRESS Department of Rural Sociology Texas AampM UniversityCollege Station TX 77843-2125 USA E-mail tswensonmsocsuntamuedu

Appendix

To derive the attitudinal scales used in the multilevel analysis an oblique rotation factoranalysis was used Table A presents the immigration factors and Table B is the aboriginalfactor The questions are re-coded to indicate opposition to immigrants or aboriginalpeople as the highest values The factor-scoring coefcients are based on the assumptionthat the items or variables are intrinsically related in some degree to other factor dimen-sions as well as interrelated with the other variables in the factor The immigrant opposi-tion analysis produced two factors with eigenvalues greater than one and each individualfactor accounted for a large percentage of the total variance The aboriginal oppositionanalysis resulted in one factor


Table A Factor Analysis Results for Immigration Attitudes

Variables Interest-Based Identity-BasedFactor Factor

Immigrants increase crime 0793 0027Immigrants are good for the economy 0743 0057Immigrants take jobs 0834 0078Would mind if relative marries an Asian 0071 0848Would mind if boss was an Asian 0045 0849

Eigenvalue 1883 1450Proportion of variance explained 0381 0283

Table B Factor Analysis Results for Aboriginal Attitudes

Variables Aboriginal Opposition Factor

Special cultural protection for Aborigines 0670Recognize aspirations of Aborigines 0671Aborigines right to self-government 0636Aboriginal land rights 0788Government help for Aborigines 0800

Eigenvalue 2566Proportion of variance explained 0513

The multilevel analysis was estimated by HLM 50 employing the La Place estimationprocedure for the analysis of binomial dependent variables Since the explanatory vari-ables are drawn from two different levels of analysis (individual and electorate) a multi-level logit model with varying intercepts was used To test the contextual effects modelthe explanatory variables are grand mean centred at each level of analysis which resultsin an easily interpretable intercept term as the likelihood of ON support for the averageperson in the average electorate The maximum likelihood parameter estimates presentedfor the model can be interpreted the same way that one would interpret regular logisticregression parameter estimates (Kennedy 1998)


become electoral issues with important implications for the future ofAustralian politics Hanson campaigned on socio-economic populismdirected towards rural workers primary producers and small businesspeople who were being disproportionately affected by increasedeconomic competition from Third World competitors Her vision was ofthe lsquoFortress Australiarsquo of the 1950s self-sufcient united and ethnicallyhomogeneous What explains the unprecedented electoral support forPauline Hanson and One Nation and what are its implications for Aus-tralian politics In this article we use the 1998 Australian Election Studyto evaluate the arguments and evidence surrounding the ON vote in the1998 federal election and to explore the importance of race-based expla-nations in accounting for its support

The rise and fall of One Nation

The formation and initial success of Pauline Hansonrsquos One Nation Partyndash from its formation in April 1997 through to the Queensland state elec-tions of June 1998 ndash took many observers of Australian politics bysurprise Hanson herself was a former Liberal Party federal electioncandidate who had been disendorsed by the party prior to the 1996election this followed comments she made in a local newspaper con-demning the special benets available to Aborigines Notwithstandingher disendorsement she was elected as an independent with a substantialswing of 193 per cent In her maiden speech in the House of Represen-tatives on 10 September 1996 Hanson continued her anti-immigrationand anti-aboriginal stance decrying lsquothe reverse racism [that] is appliedto mainstream Australians by those who promote political correctnessand those who control the various taxpayer-funded lsquoindustriesrsquo thatourish in our society servicing aboriginals multiculturalists and a hostof other minority groupsrsquo1

Hansonrsquos views about Aborigines and immigrants struck a responsivecord among Australian voters Opinion polls testing support for Hansonindicated a small but persistent core of potential voters that were respon-sive to her message2 Buoyed along by her evidently rising popularityHanson founded the One Nation Party in April 1997 The partyrsquosplatform was based on social and economic populism combining supportfor economic protectionism and state subsidized loans for farmers andsmall businesses with opposition to foreign investment large-scaleAsian immigration and gun control Not least the party sought to endthe state subsidization of ethnic and aboriginal interest groups whichHanson and many of her supporters regarded as at odds with Australiarsquosegalitarian ethos In short the One Nation Party was seen to embodythe politics of lsquoangerrsquo and the far right in a manner hitherto not witnessedin mainstream national politics (Suter 1998 Deutchmann 2000)

While ON attracted much media attention in 1997 and early 1998 it

































(Percent)

Lab Lib-Nat Dem ONP





(N) (719) (766) (100) (116)
















Data and methods











Results









Conclusion




















Acknowledgements


Notes




References









Appendix












































(Percent)

Lab Lib-Nat Dem ONP





(N) (719) (766) (100) (116)
















Data and methods











Results









Conclusion




















Acknowledgements


Notes




References









Appendix








































(Percent)

Lab Lib-Nat Dem ONP





(N) (719) (766) (100) (116)
















Data and methods











Results









Conclusion




















Acknowledgements


Notes




References









Appendix


































(Percent)

Lab Lib-Nat Dem ONP





(N) (719) (766) (100) (116)
















Data and methods











Results









Conclusion




















Acknowledgements


Notes




References









Appendix





























(Percent)

Lab Lib-Nat Dem ONP





(N) (719) (766) (100) (116)
















Data and methods











Results









Conclusion




















Acknowledgements


Notes




References









Appendix























(Percent)

Lab Lib-Nat Dem ONP





(N) (719) (766) (100) (116)
















Data and methods











Results









Conclusion




















Acknowledgements


Notes




References









Appendix


















(Percent)

Lab Lib-Nat Dem ONP





(N) (719) (766) (100) (116)
















Data and methods











Results









Conclusion




















Acknowledgements


Notes




References









Appendix



























Data and methods











Results









Conclusion




















Acknowledgements


Notes




References









Appendix






















Data and methods











Results









Conclusion




















Acknowledgements


Notes




References









Appendix
















Data and methods











Results









Conclusion




















Acknowledgements


Notes




References









Appendix





















Results









Conclusion




















Acknowledgements


Notes




References









Appendix

















Results









Conclusion




















Acknowledgements


Notes




References









Appendix



















Conclusion




















Acknowledgements


Notes




References









Appendix














Conclusion




















Acknowledgements


Notes




References









Appendix




















Acknowledgements


Notes




References









Appendix















Acknowledgements


Notes




References









Appendix














References









Appendix



















Appendix

















Appendix














Appendix















Documents

The politics of race and immigration in Australia: One ... · Hanson and many of her supporters regarded as at odds with Australia’s egalitarian ethos. In short, the One Nation