A bitter dispute over political violence has escalated between Pauline Hanson and Attorney-General Michelle Rowland after Australia’s chief law officer suggested the One Nation leader should examine whether her own rhetoric and political associations were contributing to the dangerous environment confronting politicians.

One Nation has accused Rowland of effectively blaming Hanson and other party figures for threats and abuse directed at them, arguing that political disagreements should never be used to minimise or rationalise intimidation.

Hanson has demanded an apology and accused the Attorney-General of appearing to excuse threats against people because of the political party they support.

Rowland’s actual comments, however, were more qualified than One Nation’s characterisation.

She explicitly said threats and extremism directed at politicians were unacceptable and said she wished no physical harm on Hanson or any politician.

But she also argued that Hanson needed to consider her own behaviour, ideology and associations when discussing the increasingly volatile environment surrounding Australian politics.

The controversy began after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese used a speech to Queensland Labor delegates in Brisbane to attack what he described as the growth of hard-right populism.

Albanese said such movements were promoting politics that was “dangerous, divisive and downright dishonest” and singled out One Nation while telling Labor supporters: “We simply must defeat them.”

Hanson responded by accusing the Prime Minister of crossing a line and helping create an atmosphere in which threats against her could increase.

She told the ABC that she felt unsafe and said she now required federal police protection when appearing publicly.

“What he’s doing is putting me in a position of threats against me,” Hanson said, blaming the Prime Minister’s rhetoric for worsening her security concerns.

Rowland rejected that argument when interviewed on ABC Radio National.

She acknowledged first that being a politician — particularly a high-profile woman — had become increasingly dangerous and pointed to social media algorithms that amplify hatred and extremism.

She described the problem as “completely unacceptable” and “out of control”.

But Rowland then turned the criticism back on Hanson.

She said the One Nation leader should examine what her party, ideology and behaviour were doing and whether they were encouraging the environment she was complaining about.

Rowland also referred to people Hanson had associated with whom she described as convicted criminals, and to concerns about extremist and neo-Nazi elements attempting to attach themselves to One Nation.

“I don’t wish any politician any ill will, irrespective of their political persuasion,” Rowland said, before adding that politicians sometimes needed to look at their own conduct and the standards accepted around their party.

It was that combination of statements that triggered One Nation’s anger.

Hanson argued there could be no legitimate connection between political views and whether somebody deserves protection from threats.

She called Rowland’s comments slanderous and demanded an immediate retraction and apology.

“No minister, especially the Attorney-General and first law officer of the country, should suggest there is any justification for threats against Australians because of the political party they support,” Hanson said.

She also rejected attempts to characterise the millions of Australians who support One Nation as extremists or dangerous people.

The distinction is important.

Rowland did not say Hanson deserved to receive death threats, nor did she say police should decline to investigate threats against One Nation politicians.

There is also no evidence from her remarks that she directed the Australian Federal Police not to protect Hanson or not to pursue offenders.

What Rowland did say was that Hanson should consider whether her rhetoric and political associations contributed to a broader environment of extremism and hostility.

Whether that constitutes legitimate criticism or inappropriate victim-blaming is now at the centre of the political dispute.

For One Nation, the argument is straightforward: once a politician has been threatened with violence, the political views of that person should be irrelevant to the government’s response.

The party argues that the Attorney-General should unequivocally condemn those issuing the threats rather than discussing what the intended victim may have said or done.

Labor takes a broader view.

Assistant Minister Patrick Gorman backed the government’s position, saying Labor had repeatedly urged politicians across the spectrum to lower the temperature of public debate.

He said political disagreement should be conducted respectfully but argued some of Hanson’s political stunts had not contributed to that goal.

The dispute is particularly sensitive because threats against Hanson are not hypothetical.

A 47-year-old Perth man, Anton Raymond Illich, appeared in court last month accused of making online threats to kill the One Nation leader.

Police allege Illich made three Facebook posts, including one on a page for One Nation members and supporters.

A Perth court heard that one alleged post contained a threat to hunt Hanson down and kill her.

Illich was charged with two counts of using a carriage service to make a threat. He remains entitled to the presumption of innocence and the matter has not reached a final determination.

The court ordered that he not contact Hanson, and he is due to appear again in October.

The Australian Federal Police said its investigation began after it received a notification about an alleged online threat against a federal parliamentarian.

The AFP has declined to publicly disclose details of Hanson’s current protective security arrangements, consistent with its longstanding policy of not commenting on specific protection measures for parliamentarians and high office holders.

Reports have nevertheless indicated that security surrounding Hanson has increased amid the growing number of threats.

The issue extends well beyond One Nation.

Australia’s security agencies have been warning for some time that politically motivated violence, harassment and intimidation are becoming more common.

ASIO Director-General Mike Burgess used his 2025 Annual Threat Assessment to warn that politically motivated violence was one of the areas of national security already “flashing red”.

ASIO expects the threat to remain elevated through the second half of the decade.

Burgess has described an environment in which grievances, conspiracy theories, falling trust in institutions and online echo chambers can rapidly combine to push individuals towards threatening or violent behaviour.

Importantly, ASIO does not treat the threat as belonging exclusively to one traditional political ideology.

The agency has warned that individuals increasingly draw from mixtures of apparently contradictory extremist beliefs, with personal grievances often interacting with ideological material found online.

Australian parliamentarians from Labor, the Coalition, minor parties and the crossbench have all been targets.

A national survey of federal politicians and staff cited by the ABC found 85 per cent had dealt with constituents behaving in violent, threatening or volatile ways.

AFP Commissioner Krissy Barrett has also said threats against parliamentarians have doubled over a three-year period.

Election campaigns, electorate offices and public appearances increasingly require significant police planning and resources.

The AFP’s 2024–25 annual report recorded dozens of reports involving threats to federal politicians and candidates during the 2025 election campaign alone, alongside criminal damage, harassment and attempts to disrupt political events.

More recent incidents have reinforced those concerns.

Prime Minister Albanese was evacuated from The Lodge following a bomb threat earlier this year, while politicians from different parties have reported violent online threats, vandalism and harassment.

The scale of the problem makes the Hanson-Rowland argument more than an ordinary partisan dispute.

There are two questions at play.

The first is whether politicians are entitled to criticise rhetoric they believe contributes to division or extremism.

In a democracy, they clearly are.

Labor is entitled to attack One Nation’s policies, political tactics and associations. Hanson is equally entitled to accuse Labor of divisive rhetoric and challenge Albanese’s description of her party.

The second question is more difficult: how should such criticism be expressed once there is a credible threat of violence against the person being criticised?

That is where the language used by senior political leaders becomes particularly important.

A criticism of Hanson’s rhetoric does not make another person’s threat against her legitimate.

Equally, the existence of threats against Hanson does not make criticism of her policies or political conduct illegitimate.

Both principles can be true at the same time.

Associate Professor Josh Roose, a Deakin University expert on political violence and extremism, told the ABC there should be “zero tolerance” for threats against elected politicians.

He nevertheless rejected Hanson’s argument that Albanese’s ordinary political criticism amounted to incitement, describing that conclusion as going too far.

That assessment reflects the difficulty of establishing a causal connection between heated political rhetoric and the actions of individual offenders.

Political language can contribute to a broader atmosphere, but proving that a particular speech caused a particular threat is a very different proposition.

Hanson has not produced evidence establishing that Albanese’s Brisbane address caused the alleged threats already directed against her.

Indeed, the Perth prosecution predates the Prime Minister’s latest speech.

At the same time, Labor cannot dismiss Hanson’s security concerns merely because it rejects her political interpretation of them.

A person has already been charged over an alleged death threat against her, and federal authorities have repeatedly warned that threats against politicians are rising.

The debate over extremists around One Nation is similarly complex.

Hanson has previously acknowledged that people with neo-Nazi views may support her party, while insisting they are fringe supporters over whom she has no control and are not representative of One Nation.

She has rejected attempts to imply that such individuals form part of her political organisation.

One Nation has also said it uses vetting processes intended to identify and exclude extremist infiltrators.

Rowland’s reference to convicted criminals appears to have included Hanson’s recent appearance with British anti-immigration activist Tommy Robinson, who has multiple criminal convictions.

Again, appearing with or interviewing a controversial person is not itself evidence that Hanson endorses every action or belief associated with that individual.

For the Attorney-General, however, those associations form part of the political context in which Hanson’s claims about extremism and violence are being assessed.

The confrontation comes at a politically significant moment.

One Nation has been gaining support and recently won the Western Australian state seat of Secret Harbour from Labor, intensifying debate within both major parties about how to respond to Hanson’s resurgence.

Albanese has chosen confrontation, framing One Nation as part of a broader international populist movement that Labor believes thrives on grievance and division.

Hanson, in turn, is attempting to portray Labor’s attacks as evidence that the government is demonising Australians who reject its political worldview.

The risk is that the contest itself pushes Australian political language even further towards the point security agencies have been warning about.

Politicians do not need to stop criticising each other. A functioning democracy depends on robust disagreement.

But threats to kill elected representatives are criminal matters, not political arguments, regardless of whether the target is Pauline Hanson, Anthony Albanese, Michelle Rowland or anybody else.

That is ultimately the line neither side can afford to blur as Australia’s political temperature continues to rise.