One Nation’s recent electoral success in Secret Harbour has reignited debate over the role of international treaties in Australian lawmaking, with party leader Pauline Hanson and allies criticizing what they describe as undemocratic practices employed by established political forces. Hanson argues that major parties, particularly the Australian Labor Party (ALP), use international agreements as a backdoor to impose policies favored by global activists but unpopular with many Australian voters.

Central to the controversy is the use of the external affairs power within Australia’s Constitution, which allows the government to implement international treaties into domestic law. Critics contend this mechanism enables the incorporation of external instruments—often devised by unelected global assemblies—into the Australian legal framework without direct parliamentary approval. They argue this bypasses normal democratic processes and imposes regulations that Australian legislatures might not otherwise endorse.

Hanson’s legal challenge currently before the High Court highlights her concerns. The case follows her contentious remarks directed at Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi, whom she told to “pack your bags and piss off back to Pakistan” after Faruqi criticized the late Queen Elizabeth II’s legacy. Faruqi’s victory in a related legal dispute rested on section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, a provision introduced to fulfill Australia’s obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Hanson’s appeal contends that section 18C’s wording extends well beyond that found in the international treaty itself, illustrating what she calls a “ruse” in how international agreements are used to shape domestic laws.

Observers note contrasts in political responses to racially charged language in other countries. For instance, New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters faced debate after telling Chinese-born Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan to “go back to your own country,” an incident Peters defended by dismissing critics as overly sensitive. Hanson and her supporters question why Australian politicians face greater legal constraints under international treaty-derived provisions.

The debate also touches on other treaty-related issues, such as recent calls by the Victorian Yoorrook Justice Commission to embed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) into state law. While proponents argue the declaration supports Indigenous rights, critics maintain its provisions conflict with Australia’s legal and constitutional framework by implying multiple sovereignties within one nation. Even a federal Labor-Greens parliamentary committee refrained from recommending full legal adoption of UNDRIP, reflecting ongoing ambivalence within government ranks.

While some international treaties have practical value for Australia, Hanson and other critics warn that numerous global agreements serve as tools for activists to circumvent parliamentary democracy. They urge greater scrutiny of the treaty process and question whether current political actors adequately represent Australian interests when incorporating such international instruments.

The issue raises broader questions about sovereignty, democratic accountability, and the appropriate balance between global commitments and domestic lawmaking in Australia’s evolving political landscape.