One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has thrown her political weight behind disgraced former SAS corporal Ben Roberts-Smith, telling a public rally that he is a person she respects and admires. The public declaration marks a deliberate calculation to weaponize the fallout of Australia's most high-profile defamation trial for political gain. By aligning herself with a figure legally determined to have committed war crimes, Hanson is not blundering into a controversy. She is executing a familiar playbook designed to lock in her populist base and exploit a deep-seated institutional distrust among specific segments of the Australian electorate.
The move comes in the wake of a Federal Court ruling that dismissed Roberts-Smith’s defamation lawsuits against several media outlets. The civil court found, to the civil standard of proof, that allegations of murder against the Victoria Cross recipient were substantially true. While mainstream political figures distanced themselves from the fallen soldier, Hanson chose to lean in.
The Populist Playbook of Institutional Defiance
Populist politics thrives on the creation of an "us versus them" dichotomy. For Hanson, the Roberts-Smith verdict is a weapon to wield against the federal government, military leadership, and the mainstream media. By positioning Roberts-Smith as a victim of a bureaucratic witch hunt, One Nation taps into a vein of grievance shared by voters who believe traditional institutions have abandoned working-class Australians.
This strategy relies on shifting the focus away from the specific findings of the Federal Court. Instead, the narrative becomes about a veteran being persecuted by an elite class that has never experienced the realities of combat.
- The Media Target: Outlets that investigated the allegations are painted as unpatriotic.
- The Military Elite Target: Defense force leadership is accused of scapegoating frontline soldiers to protect high-ranking officers.
- The Judicial Target: The civil court standard of proof is conflated with criminal proceedings to sow doubt about the validity of the findings.
The calculation is precise. Hanson understands that her core voters are less concerned with the legal nuances of the Brereton Report and more concerned with what they perceive as the erosion of national pride. Roberts-Smith, decorated and physically imposing, remains a powerful symbol of traditional Australian masculinity and heroism for this demographic, regardless of judicial findings.
The Strategic Rewriting of Military Heroism
To understand why this rhetoric works, one must look at how military heroism is constructed and defended in the public sphere. When a court strips away the legal shield of a national hero, it creates a vacuum. Populist leaders rush to fill this space by offering a counter-narrative that converts legal guilt into political martyrdom.
The Myth of the Hamstrung Soldier
A recurring theme in Hanson's rhetoric is the idea that rules of engagement are written by bureaucrats who imperil soldiers on the ground. This argument suggests that combat zones are inherently lawless and that applying domestic legal standards to wartime actions is unfair.
It is an effective piece of political rhetoric because it appeals to a basic sense of fairness while ignoring the international treaties and laws of armed conflict that Australia has signed. The reality is that the laws of war exist to protect both combatants and non-combatants, a point consistently made by military lawyers but frequently drowned out in populist speeches.
Exploiting the Veteran Community
The broader veteran community in Australia is not a monolith, and reactions to the Roberts-Smith verdict are deeply divided. Many veterans feel that the actions of a few individuals tarnish the reputation of the entire defense force. Others feel a sense of betrayal, believing that the government sends young men to war and then abandons them when the political wind shifts.
Hanson exploits this fracture. By championing Roberts-Smith, she positions One Nation as the only party willing to stand up for veterans without caveat. It is a high-risk strategy that alienates moderate voters but solidifies support among a highly motivated, intensely loyal segment of the population.
Financial and Media Symbiosis
Political campaigns run on attention and money. The alignment between Hanson and the camp supporting Roberts-Smith highlights a broader network of conservative media, wealthy benefactors, and populist politicians who share a common enemy in the progressive press.
| Actor | Role in the Narrative | Political/Commercial Objective |
|---|---|---|
| One Nation | Political champion for the accused | Base mobilization and voter acquisition |
| Conservative Media | Platform for alternative narratives | Audience retention and anti-establishment branding |
| Wealthy Backers | Financial legal funding and logistics | Influence over judicial and cultural outcomes |
This network creates an echo chamber where the findings of a federal judge can be dismissed as a product of a biased system. For Hanson, the media storm generated by her comments is exactly the point. It ensures her party remains in the headlines, framing her as a truth-teller willing to say the unsayable.
The Long Term Costs to Military Justice
While the immediate benefits for One Nation are clear, the long-term implications for the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and the broader legal system are problematic. When political leaders validate individuals found to have violated the laws of war, they undermine the internal discipline of the military.
The ADF relies on a strict hierarchy and adherence to legal orders. If soldiers believe that political factions will shield them from accountability, the chain of command breaks down. The systemic danger is that the defense of Roberts-Smith transforms from a critique of one trial into an assault on the principle of military accountability.
The Brereton Inquiry spent years investigating allegations of war crimes, driven by whistleblowers from within the Special Air Service Regiment itself. These were not external critics; they were insiders who believed the honor of their unit was at stake. By framing the issue purely as an attack by external elites, Hanson dismisses the moral agency of the soldiers who risked their careers to report misconduct.
This political stance creates a dangerous precedent where legal outcomes are accepted only when they align with partisan preferences. The integrity of the judicial system depends on the collective agreement to respect verdicts, even when they are uncomfortable or distressing to the national psyche.
The rhetoric deployed at the rally is a symptom of a deeply polarized political environment. The target is not the courtroom, but the ballot box. By elevating a compromised figure, Hanson bets that grievance will outlast evidence, and that for her voters, an embattled hero is more potent than an uncomfortable truth.
