ABC demands One Nation stop using Bluey in controversial cartoons

Consensus Summary

The ABC has demanded One Nation remove its controversial cartoons featuring Bluey, Australia’s beloved children’s character, after determining the use constitutes a breach of intellectual property. The dispute centers on a 2024 cartoon titled *State of Melbourne*, which depicts Bluey ramming politicians with an SUV—a video that has garnered 1.3 million YouTube views. ABC Managing Director Hugh Marks confirmed during Senate estimates on Tuesday that the broadcaster would take legal action, though it must coordinate with Bluey’s IP holder, Ludo Studios, and distributor BBC Studios. The controversy resurfaced after Senator Varun Ghosh highlighted the cartoon’s ‘particular poignancy’ in the last week, following a violent attack on independent MP Helen Haines.

The background of the dispute traces back to One Nation’s *Please Explain* cartoon series, which has repeatedly used Bluey in politically charged depictions. The ABC argues the use is not a parody but a direct infringement, as the cartoons—including one from 2024 showing Bluey and former Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews in a violent car crash—lack permission from the creators. The timing of the ABC’s intervention coincides with broader scrutiny of One Nation’s cartoons, which have drawn criticism for crossing ethical lines, including a widely condemned video mocking Senator Jacqui Lambie’s health issues. Pauline Hanson initially defended the cartoons but later apologized for the Lambie incident after admitting she had not seen it.

Key figures in the dispute include Hugh Marks, who has framed the issue as both a legal and moral concern, emphasizing that Bluey is ‘Australia’s most loved character’ and its use in political satire is ‘shocking and disrespectful.’ Senator Varun Ghosh amplified the controversy by linking the cartoon to recent events, while Communications Minister Anika Wells urged One Nation to explain its choices. Hanson, however, denied the cartoons breach intellectual property, though she has faced backlash for other controversial content, such as a coloring book distributed in South Australia depicting Bluey at knifepoint. The ABC’s legal team is now exploring injunctive relief, as financial damages alone would not address the perceived harm.

While both the Guardian and ABC agree on the core facts—including the cease-and-desist letter, the 2024 cartoon, and the 1.3 million views—they diverge in emphasis. The Guardian delves into internal ABC matters, such as the termination of former news director Justin Stevens and the dismissal of Four Corners reporter Mahmood Fazal over reporting flaws, while the ABC focuses more on the legal and political dimensions of the Bluey dispute. The Guardian also notes the attack on Helen Haines occurred ‘a week after’ the cartoon’s release, though the ABC does not explicitly tie the two events together. Additionally, the Guardian provides specific financial figures, such as Stevens’ $353,230 payout and his $864,394 annual remuneration, which the ABC does not mention.

The dispute remains unresolved, with the ABC’s next steps dependent on coordination with Ludo Studios and BBC Studios. One Nation has not yet removed the cartoons, and Hanson has deferred comment on the coloring book incident to the Victorian party executive. The ABC’s review of editorial guidelines on anonymous sources, prompted by Fazal’s dismissal, adds another layer to the broadcaster’s internal challenges. Meanwhile, public and political pressure continues to mount, with calls for One Nation to clarify whether its use of Bluey qualifies as satire or crosses into disrespectful exploitation of a national icon.