The songwriters behind I Am Australian have objected to the use of their best-known song at a conservative political conference in Brisbane, saying they did not grant permission for its performance. Bruce Woodley, a member of The Seekers, and co-writer Dobe Newton spoke out after the song was performed at the opening of the Conservative Political Action Conference, known as CPAC, on Saturday, 10 October 2026. Their objection has reignited a familiar question: who may use a song associated with national unity to make a political point?
The song formed part of the opening ceremony alongside the national anthem and Waltzing Matilda. The Australian Associated Press reported that the performance was also advertised in the conference agenda. Woodley said no permission had been requested from him or given by him for the use of his work. Newton likewise criticised the connection between the song and the political messages heard during the event. These are the songwriters’ accounts of approval and their objections to context, not a court finding that any law has been broken.
I Am Australian was written by Woodley and Newton in 1987. The National Film and Sound Archive describes it as one of the country’s most recognisable patriotic songs and records its strong associations with Australia’s history, landscapes and diversity. Its best-known recordings include performances by the late Seekers singer Judith Durham and other prominent Australian musicians. That history helps explain why the use of the song is not merely a dispute over a background tune; its creators see the meaning of the work as central to the controversy.
At CPAC, speakers including One Nation leader Pauline Hanson and then-opposition leader Angus Taylor criticised what they described as mass immigration. The writers argued that those messages stood at odds with their understanding of the song’s emphasis on unity across different backgrounds. Their criticism is a viewpoint that can be attributed and examined. It should not be reported as a fact that every person at the conference shared the same policy position, nor should the newspaper’s description of a political argument be confused with a ruling on intellectual property rights.
According to the AAP report, Newton also recalled an earlier disagreement involving possible use of I Am Australian in a political campaign associated with Pauline Hanson. He said a lawyer’s letter was prepared and the proposed use did not proceed. That account is relevant to the songwriters’ long-standing concern about political association, but it does not automatically determine whether the 2026 conference performance infringed copyright. Each use can involve different legal facts, rights and licensing arrangements.
The principle being disputed involves more than whether a song is popular or easy to sing. Creative works generally have rights holders, and particular uses may require licences or permission depending on how, where and by whom the work is performed. A conference that includes a song in its opening program may raise questions about public performance, recordings and any political endorsement implied by the event. The exact legal position can depend on the licences held, the nature of the performance and the rights involved.
Mark Callaghan, musician and long-serving board member of copyright management organisations, gave AAP an opinion that the use was unauthorised and unlawful. That is his professional assessment, not a judicial ruling. The organisers were contacted for comment in the reporting reviewed. The material does not include a final court determination or a publicly verified complete record of the conference’s licensing arrangements. Any article should preserve that distinction rather than present an allegation of unauthorised use as a conviction or final legal finding.
Australia’s National Film and Sound Archive offers useful context about the work’s public life. It records an important 1997 version involving Judith Durham, Russell Hitchcock and Mandawuy Yunupingu, which helped cement the song’s presence in Australian popular culture. It has been heard in settings ranging from sporting events to memorials and public commemorations. Those uses help explain its power as a shorthand for Australian identity, but familiarity does not mean that every organiser has unrestricted rights to deploy it in a political setting.
The work’s history also complicates attempts by any movement to claim exclusive ownership over its message. I Am Australian has been used by different organisations at different times, including with permission in the 1999 republic referendum campaign. Newton said the songwriters declined requests from both sides during the 2023 Voice to Parliament referendum. These examples show the creators have not simply granted a blanket political licence to one camp while refusing it to another. Each request and use belongs to its own factual context.
The reaction to CPAC is therefore both artistic and political. From the writers’ perspective, an audience can hear the song in a way that seems to place the creators’ work alongside a set of policies they oppose. From the organisers’ perspective, the choice of a well-known national song may have been intended to express patriotism or solidarity. The latter is an interpretation of why such a song might be chosen, not a statement from CPAC verified in the accounts reviewed. The reporting can describe the dispute without inventing private motives.
There is a difference between enjoying a song, singing it privately and incorporating it into a public event that carries political messaging. The rules applicable to those situations may differ. The present article is not legal advice about when a licence is required; rather, it records a public dispute in which the creators say permission was not sought or granted. A proper determination would require the relevant agreements, rights and evidence of the actual use, none of which has been fully adjudicated in the material available.
It would also be wrong to suggest The Seekers as an organisation currently controls all rights without examining ownership and publishing arrangements. Woodley is a member of the famous group and a co-writer of the song; Newton was the other writer. Rights may be administered through publishers or licensing organisations. Precisely naming the people who made the objection is more reliable than implying every current or former performer associated with the song issued a joint legal notice about CPAC.
The song is particularly resonant among Australians who remember the original writing, prominent cover recordings and performances at public ceremonies. Its language and melody are familiar across generations. That emotional connection makes political use sensitive: a song heard as inclusive by one audience may be used in an event where others hear exclusionary views, generating a conflict about meaning. This article need not resolve those competing opinions. It can report that the creators objected and explain why.
For political organisations, the controversy is a practical reminder that the use of music carries implications beyond providing atmosphere. A familiar song may appear to endorse the values, speaker or campaign with which it is paired, whether or not the creators intend such an association. The responsible approach is to consider rights and approval before using music publicly, particularly where a work has an identifiable message. That is a general lesson, not a claim that CPAC’s precise licensing position has already been proved in court.
For musicians and songwriters, the dispute highlights the limits of controlling how audiences interpret art once it becomes culturally prominent. People can associate a song with personal memories and public causes that the creators never anticipated. The ability to control some forms of reproduction or performance is a legal question; the desire to disavow a political association is also a matter of artistic expression. Woodley and Newton exercised that public voice when they criticised the Brisbane conference and explained their objection.
News coverage of the controversy must also be careful with copyright itself. Reprinting substantial song lyrics or using original recordings, album images and performance footage without appropriate rights could create problems unrelated to the factual news story. A headline can identify the song by title without reproducing its full lyrics. Illustrations should avoid inventing photographs of Woodley or Newton attending CPAC, because the source material establishes a public response to the performance, not their participation in the event.
The available record places the incident clearly in time. The song was performed at the Brisbane conference on Saturday, 10 October; AAP reported the co-writers’ objections on Monday, 12 October. Their statements are documented, and the song’s authorship is supported by the National Film and Sound Archive. Whether organisers held some licence, whether that licence covered this setting and whether any legal challenge follows are separate unresolved questions. Reporting should not silently upgrade those questions into established infringements.
Ultimately the clash concerns an Australian song whose cultural life has stretched far beyond its first recording. Its co-creators have made clear that they object to the political context of this performance and say it happened without their permission. CPAC’s decision to use a familiar national song has drawn scrutiny precisely because of the expectations such music brings. The facts support a sharp account of an artistic and political dispute; they do not support a claim that a court has already found the conference guilty of breaching copyright law.
