Paul Hogan has reportedly taken a very Australian swipe at Pauline Hanson after she used him while promoting her argument for an “Australian monoculture.”
Hanson had pointed to figures like Hogan and Norman Gunston as part of her vision of an older, supposedly more unified Australia. But Hogan has now pushed back against that framing, making it clear he does not want to be used as a symbol for a political message that pushes Australia away from multiculturalism.
According to reports, Hogan did not hold back.
“She’s a pelican, yeah,” he reportedly said, while also comparing Hanson’s rhetoric to Donald Trump.
The comment quickly gained attention because it was blunt, simple and unmistakably Australian. But behind the insult is a much bigger political message. Hogan was not only rejecting Hanson personally. He was rejecting the idea that Australia’s identity can be reduced to one narrow cultural image.
That is why this story has landed so strongly.
For many Australians, Hogan represents a particular image of the country: the larrikin, the dry humour, the working-class confidence, the “Crocodile Dundee” version of Australia that became famous around the world. Hanson appeared to lean into that image when arguing for monoculture, trying to present it as proof of a simpler and more united national past.
But Hogan’s response appears to have undercut the whole argument.
The man she tried to use as a symbol of old Australia has reportedly rejected the idea that Australia should be defined by monoculture. Instead, he has pointed back toward the multicultural reality that has shaped the country for decades.
That matters because political nostalgia is powerful. It tells people there was once a cleaner, simpler, more united version of the country — and that something has been lost because of migrants, multiculturalism, religion or social change.
But that version of Australia is incomplete.
Before anything else, this land has an Indigenous history stretching back tens of thousands of years. Any conversation about Australian identity that begins with “monoculture” already ignores the oldest continuous cultures on earth. First Nations people were here long before modern Australia existed, long before British colonisation, and long before politicians started arguing over who belongs.
Modern Australia was then shaped by waves of migration, labour, struggle and community building. People came from Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa, the Pacific and beyond. They worked in factories, opened small businesses, built suburbs, raised families, served in essential industries and helped turn Australia into the country it is today.
That is not a side detail.
It is the story of Australia.
The food people eat, the suburbs they live in, the workplaces they share, the music they hear, the sport they follow and the families they belong to have all been shaped by multicultural Australia. Millions of Australians have parents, grandparents or great-grandparents who came from somewhere else. Millions more live in communities where different cultures are part of everyday life.
So when Hanson talks about monoculture, many Australians hear something that does not reflect the country around them.
They hear a political slogan that looks backwards.
They hear an attempt to narrow Australian identity.
They hear a message that suggests some people are more Australian than others.
That is why Hogan’s response matters beyond the insult. Whether people like his wording or not, the point he made cuts directly into Hanson’s argument: Australia is not one single culture, and it never has been.
Hanson’s push for monoculture also raises a deeper question about who gets to define the country.
Is Australia defined only by a narrow image of the past?
Or is it defined by the people who live here now — First Nations communities, migrants, children of migrants, workers, families, students, small business owners and everyone who contributes to the nation every day?
For NTK NEWS, the answer is clear.
Australia does not become weaker because it is multicultural. It becomes weaker when politicians try to turn difference into division.
Multiculturalism is not perfect. No country is perfect. Australia still has serious issues with racism, inequality, housing pressure, cost of living, social cohesion and political division. But blaming multiculturalism for every national problem is lazy politics. It avoids the real causes of hardship and turns communities into targets.
That is what makes the monoculture argument so dangerous.
It does not solve housing.
It does not fix wages.
It does not improve hospitals.
It does not reduce crime.
It does not make young people more secure.
It simply gives people someone to blame.
And too often, the people being blamed are migrants, Muslims, refugees, First Nations people, international students or visible minorities who are already used as political punching bags.
Australia can have a strong national identity without demanding that everyone look the same, speak the same, worship the same or come from the same background. Shared values do not require cultural sameness. A country can believe in fairness, safety, democracy, equality and respect while still being made up of many cultures.
That is the difference Hanson’s argument seems to miss.
Unity is not the same as uniformity.
A multicultural country can still be united. In fact, for Australia, that is the only realistic path forward. The country is already multicultural. Its cities, schools, workplaces and families prove that every day. Trying to reverse that reality is not a serious national plan. It is nostalgia dressed up as policy.
Hogan’s response appears to have hit a nerve because it came from someone Hanson tried to claim as part of her cultural argument. She tried to use him as a symbol of the Australia she wants to bring back. Instead, he reportedly pushed back and made it clear that he does not belong to that message.
That is a political problem for Hanson.
Because if even one of the icons she points to rejects the idea, then the argument starts to look less like national pride and more like selective memory.
Australia’s identity is not frozen in the 1970s, 1980s or any other decade. It has always changed. It changed with colonisation. It changed with migration. It changed with post-war workers. It changed with Vietnamese refugees. It changed with Lebanese, Greek, Italian, Chinese, Indian, African, Pacific Islander and countless other communities. It is still changing now.
That is not a threat.
That is a country growing.
The real test is not whether Australia can go back to some imagined monoculture. It cannot. The real test is whether Australia can build a fair future where people from different backgrounds are treated as part of the country, not as outsiders who must constantly prove they belong.
That is why this story is bigger than Paul Hogan calling Pauline Hanson a pelican.
It is about political leaders trying to claim Australian identity for one narrow group — and being challenged by the very cultural symbols they try to use.
It is about whether Australia looks backwards or forwards.
It is about whether multiculturalism is treated as a problem to be erased or a reality to be respected.
And it is about whether public figures allow their image to be used in campaigns that divide the country.
Hogan’s message, blunt as it was, points to a simple truth: Australia is not one culture. It never was.
First Nations history came first.
Migration helped build the modern nation.
And multicultural Australia is not a weakness.
It is part of who we are.