View from The Hill: Did Albanese’s language against One Nation ‘cross a line’ or is Pauline Hanson just playing victim politics?

The political battle between Anthony Albanese and Pauline Hanson continues to escalate, with both sides seemingly unleashing increasingly harsh rhetoric. During the Queensland Labor conference, Albanese criticized Hanson and One Nation, stating that these parties "peddle politics that are dangerous, divisive, and downright dishonest."

He warned that these groups "will say anything and do anything to win votes...turn any facts and peddle misinformation and disinformation." However, Hanson responded by accusing the PM and Treasurer Jim Chalmers of "crossing a line" in their attacks, asserting that her party is the victim. Hanson defended free speech but drew a line at "normalising and encouraging potential incitement to violence."

This sparked a cycle of responses, with Attorney-General Michelle Rowland accusing Hanson's party of being infiltrated by extremists and neo-Nazis, leading Hanson to call for an apology from Rowland. The situation highlights the challenge that mainstream parties face in countering Hanson and One Nation, and how their language in this debate can be perceived as crossing a line or merely playing victim politics.