Pointless anger in One Nation cartoons?

One Nation’s Please Explain cartoons have generated ongoing controversy. They depict former Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan as a witch, mock Tasmanian senator Jackie Lambie’s medical condition, and label Opposition frontbencher Andrew Hastie as a “traitor.” The cartoons have also stirred an infringement of the intellectual property debate over its use of Bluey, with the October 2024 episode attracting particular attention – amid the alleged attack on independent MP Helen Haines after which she lost both legs – for depictions of the character in an SUV ramming politicians.

One Nation’s AI generated political ad ‘Coming Out’ has also drawn criticism for using stereotypical depictions – a Middle Eastern looking man in a suicide bomb vest, a young black man wielding a machete, and a family with piercings and colourful hair who turn out to be secret One Nation supporters. The video was described as “inclusive” by its creator Mark Nicholson, co-founder of Stepmates Studios behind One Nation’s cartoons series, who also happens to be running for Victoria’s Legislative Council on behalf of the party. 

These depictions go against the foundational principles that underpin the power dynamics in political satire and cartooning. The political cartoon is traditionally based on provocation, exaggeration, and ridicule, and doubtless the One Nation cartoons use these techniques aplenty. However, this dynamic becomes murkier on two fronts: when the commentary on power is produced on behalf of political power itself; and when the satirist punches down and deploys harmful and reductive stereotypes.

Defending the cartoon series, Pauline Hanson apologised publicly for the Jacqui Lambie cartoon. Nicholson refused to apologise for his studio’s creations, explaining that public figures open themselves “to praise, but also… to parody” and that “characters need caricatures and caricatures come from stereotype.”  

This controversy exposes a tension familiar to political cartoonists themselves. In my interviews, they regard their craft as opinion journalism which may at times offend. Cartoonists value the freedom of judgment and argumentation. This freedom isn’t boundless. Despite trying to maintain a level of autonomy and push the boundaries of what is acceptable, almost everyone mentions not only legal and editorial boundaries but self-imposed ethical boundaries, particularly around depictions of gender, age, ability, religion, and race and the use of stereotypes. 

“I draw about everything,” notes Italian-Dutch freelance cartoonist Emanuele del Rosso. “But that does not mean I would draw anything about everything. There are topics that I approach with a little more care… societal issues like migration, integration, protests involving younger generations… One thing I think about quite a lot is how to represent society fairly.”

Morten Morland, Norwegian cartoonist for The Times, argues that audiences “seem to be becoming more literal in how they read images,” prompting him to exercise a degree of self-censorship and pre-empt responses to certain metaphors. 

“I usually take the idea as far as I can,” adds Banx, a British cartoonist for the Financial Times. “If I have an idea that is genuinely funny and I suspect it may offend someone, that does not necessarily stop me. But I do not set out to be rude or deliberately upset people.”

Similarly, Stellina Chen, a Taiwanese freelance cartoonist, mentions that she is “not trying to hurt someone,” echoing the position of The New Yorker cartoonist Barry Blitt, who is “not in the business of insulting people.” 

A political party can use satire, and offensive satire does not necessarily cease to be satire. However, three tensions emerge. First, One Nation complicates our understanding of political satire, as it does not merely defend the cartoonists’ right to offend but uses cartoons as communication produced by and for a political party seeking power. Second, while One Nation defends its cartoons as expression of free speech, the party has already been criticised for invoking freedom of expression, excluding the ABC, Guardian, and The Age from its events. Three, boundaries should be drawn between effective and ineffective satire. Kevin Kallaugher in particular stresses the importance of avoiding “ineffective cartoons” that get people angry rather than help them understand the point and “effective cartoons” that make satire “palatable for your culture and your country.” 

Indeed, effective cartoons use verbo-visual calibration while retaining a degree of critical independence – punch up in different ideological directions, including at figures that cartoonists may originally sympathise with, spotlight power relationship and hypocrisy, invite to debate, and connect with people even when they disagree. 

In contrast, ineffective cartoons are based on maximum provocation and “exclusionary” satire. And One Nation’s cartoons seem to belong to the second type, insulting the party’s opponents and groups with less power and functioning as partisan messaging for political gain.

References 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-10-31/one-nation-cartoon-david-farley-staffing/107331900  

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-10-20/hanson-apologises-for-one-nation-cartoon-mocking-lambie/107288602 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-09/andrew-hastie-demands-one-nation-delete-traitor-cartoon-on-x/107134606 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-10-26/one-nation-cartoon-political-jacqui-lambie-pauline-hanson/107308528  

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2026/oct/27/abc-to-take-legal-action-after-right-wing-one-nation-party-used-bluey-in-shocking-and-disrespectful-cartoon-ntwnfb  

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-10-26/one-nation-cartoon-political-jacqui-lambie-pauline-hanson/107308528  

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-10-26/one-nation-cartoon-political-jacqui-lambie-pauline-hanson/107308528 

https://www.uts.edu.au/news/2026/09/a-right-racket  
https://journals-sagepub-com.ezproxy.lib.uts.edu.au/doi/10.1177/15274764231213816