The Peculiar Logic of One Nation: Relying on Gay Strategists While Debating Their Rights

Political movements often struggle with ideological consistency, but Australia’s One Nation treats ideological coherence as a mere suggestion. The populist outfit currently finds itself in the peculiar position of relying heavily on gay political operators, even as its elected representatives publicly muse about whether homosexuals deserve basic civic equality.

The latest glimpse into this internal contradiction comes via footage from June’s Church and State conference, a conservative Christian political education ministry. Addressing the audience, Senator Malcolm Roberts engaged in some rather extraordinary philosophical gymnastics regarding the rights of gay citizens. When questioned specifically about James Ashby, One Nation’s openly gay party director, Roberts offered a deeply convoluted assessment. While acknowledging Ashby’s formidable political acumen and personal integrity, the senator suggested that his colleague was somehow morally unsound by the standards of the religious environment they were discussing.

Roberts then ventured into even stranger territory by pondering the logistics of state-sponsored discrimination. Citing the historical progression of rights for women and ethnic minorities, the senator confessed he was undecided on whether gay people should follow the same trajectory. He noted the high number of homosexuals occupying prominent roles in science, business, and the arts, ultimately concluding that society probably cannot afford to prohibit them from public life entirely.

The mere suggestion that marginalising a demographic was a logistical hurdle rather than a democratic impossibility drew immediate condemnation. Anna Brown, chief executive of Equality Australia, expressed horror that a sitting federal politician would frame basic human rights as an open question. She pointed out the obvious reality that deep religious faith and homosexuality are not mutually exclusive concepts, dismissing the senator's premise as fundamentally incompatible with a free society.

The sheer absurdity of Roberts’ existential crisis is magnified by his own party's demographic reality. Beyond Ashby’s central role in managing One Nation, the party recently celebrated the election of Jason Virgo, another openly gay candidate, to the South Australian parliament. This dynamic prompted rival politician Barnaby Joyce to wryly observe that One Nation is heavily populated by the very people its fringe candidates routinely attack. The internal messaging is hopelessly tangled: Ashby openly dislikes the rainbow flag, party leader Pauline Hanson insists sexuality should remain strictly private, and newly minted upper house colleague Cory Bernardi stubbornly defends decade-old remarks linking same-sex marriage to bestiality.

Roberts’ musings at the event were not limited to human sexuality. The senator also took aim at the introduction of no-fault divorce in 1975, framing modern family law as a deliberate communist plot designed to dismantle the traditional household. He also vowed to advocate for a blanket abortion ban, a stance that directly contradicts Hanson’s established policy. Between managing rogue candidates and senators who see Marxist conspiracies in marital separation, Hanson’s leadership appears to be an endless exercise in damage control. Unsurprisingly, the party apparatus has remained entirely silent on the footage, leaving the public to guess which century One Nation actually wishes to legislate for.

Written by Christiane Hofreiter christiane.hofreiter@alpineweekly.com