The ABC has told One Nation to immediately remove a cartoon depicting children’s TV character Bluey running over former Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews.
ABC Managing Director Hugh Marks raised the issue at Senate estimates on Tuesday, questioning the legality and ethics of the video.
One Nation leader Pauline Hanson denies claims the video breaches intellectual property laws, saying the cartoons “will not be going anywhere”.
The public broadcaster has said it is considering legal action.
Here’s what you need to know.
Background
Bluey is a children’s TV show created by Queensland-based Ludo Studio, which owns the intellectual property.
BBC Studios distributes the program overseas and the ABC licenses it for Australian audiences.
Pauline Hanson’s ‘Please Explain’ is a satirical cartoon series published by One Nation.
Bluey appears in at least two episodes from 2024.
In one of them, the cartoon dog runs over Dan Andrews.
Your contribution ensures The Daily Aus can continue doing the work you love.
I want to give $10 monthly to help TDA keep doing the news.
Your details:
The video resurfaced last week after independent MP Helen Haines was rammed by a car outside her electorate office in Victoria.
ABC Managing Director Hugh Marks told Senate estimates on Tuesday the ABC was considering legal action.
The broadcaster also said it has asked One Nation to take it down.
Responses
Hanson denied the cartoons breach intellectual property, defending them as “free speech” and “satire”.
Communications Minister Anika Wells said the ABC is within its rights to be concerned, calling Bluey one of Australia’s “most loved, most well-known exports”.
Other issues
Separately, the creator of the ‘Please Explain’ series has refused to apologise to Senator Jacqui Lambie over a recent video mocking her vaginal prolapse.
This week, reports emerged about a kids’ colouring book, handed out at a One Nation booth in South Australia, that shows Bluey and Robert Irwin being held at knifepoint.
Hanson avoided direct questions about the book, saying it was “to do with the party and with the executive”.
