‘Delulu with no solulu’: the influencer network that is changing the way our politicians engage

Last month, Australia’s Parliament heard a colloquialism it had never heard before.

“They are delulu with no solulu,” the prime minister exclaimed.

Translated, he said, “They are delusional with no solution.”

It was a phrase the PM had picked up from a podcast, in which the hosts had dared him to get the saying into Hansard. But it’s not just the prime minister’s vernacular where podcasters — and others with big social media followings — are showing influence.

This election, politicians have opened the door to podcasters and social media personalities like never before.

Exclusive interviews, invitations to budget lock-up, early access to policy announcements and the chance to join the campaign trail — should they want to.

The ABC has revealed some influencers are even being paid by teal independent Allegra Spender and Climate 200 to create content.

It is being quietly facilitated by Sentiment Agency – founded by musician and activist Holly Rankin, also known as Jack River.

The web connecting politicians and influencers has caused experts to raise transparency questions, suggesting current laws haven’t kept pace.

‘Teal’ pays for positive influencer comment

Influencer and mental health advocate Milly Rose Bannister this week posted two “in collaboration” videos — one with independent Allegra Spender, the other with Climate 200.

Spender has admitted to paying an agency to commission the content. 

Climate 200’s executive director, Byron Fay, also acknowledged they connected with Australians through “creator partnerships”.

“We’re proud to work with Aussie creators to make content that aligns with their values,” he said.

Tik Tok creator Luke Gallagher is among those to have posted a video “made in collaboration” with Spender.

A spokesman for Spender said sometimes creators were “compensated for their time, to cover things like production costs,” but, “the final editorial decisions of the content are completely up to the content creators.”

In a statement to the ABC, Bannister defended the content and partnership, saying she strongly believed in Spender’s approach to politics and delivering information to young Australians. 

“The content I create is entirely based on my own views, voice and research, and I stand by them,” she said. “Digital advocates like me, who follow the publishing guidelines of the AEC, are entitled to be remunerated for their time and quality of work, just as traditional media workers are. We are helping to bridge the gap between politics and young people and reaching voters who don’t connect with old media. We should be encouraging more of that, not less.” 

Labor invited influencers to the budget lock-up

Last month Labor invited a group of content creators into the government’s budget lock-up, including Bannister. The party paid for some of the influencers’ travel costs, but it insists there was no requirement for the attendees to post, let alone share something positive.

Rather, it was part of an influencer outreach program that has been running for a year. As part of this, Labor is continuing to consider how it can engage with content creators as part of its on-the-road campaign, but so far none have joined them.

Labor also appeared to have sent an early copy of its press release about a mental health policy announcement to Bannister, as is common with mainstream media outlets.

Collaborative posts across the parliament

Other parties and candidates are engaging in the influencer space too.

Olympic diver and social media star Sam Fricker was invited to attend Peter Dutton’s budget reply speech, and filmed a video with him afterwards. Fricker said he was not paid.

Greens Senator Larissa Waters has also filmed videos with supportive content creator Holly MacAlpine, who is a party member, but said she had never been paid to create political content. Both Greens leader Adam Bandt and the prime minister Anthony Albanese also made high profile appearances on Abbie Chatfield’s podcast It’s A Lot, but she too said no payment was involved.

As politicians continue to engage with podcasters and other social media personalities, the Australian Electoral Commission has updated its guidance, telling politicians and parties they must authorise co-authored Instagram posts with influencers.

How much influence does an influencer have?

Whie some politicians have sought to raise concerns about the rise of influencers in the political space, there’s acknowledgement from all sides that they are a useful communication vehicle to connect with younger and online audiences. 

Particularly podcasts. The general consensus is it’s an hour of their time, can result in hundreds of thousands (if not more) of ears and eyes across various platforms, and largely doesn’t have the same combativeness a journalist might apply. It’s also just a chance to meet Australians where they are: online.

Hannah Ferguson is a 26-year-old podcaster and commentator who delivers “news that talks back” through her business Cheek Media. Across her Instagram accounts, her following is 200,000 strong.

Ferguson says she’s talking to an audience of largely young women — a demographic that can be hard to capture through traditional media. That makes her and Cheek Media influential, and politicians know it.

In recent weeks she’s landed interviews with both PM Albanese and Greens leader Bandt. 

In a sign of how influential those in the halls of Canberra think content creators have become, nearly a dozen politicians cleared time in their schedules during a busy sitting week in February to meet her, including Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Finance Minister Katy Gallagher.

Ferguson was also one of the social media influencers invited to the federal budget lock-up, where they received a briefing from Senator Gallagher. She said her travel was not paid for.

“I think that the new wave is Instagram and TikTok and…what they [voters] are consuming defines their view of the news and their view of politicians, so I think it’s hugely important,” Ferguson says. “It could define the federal election in 2025.”

Political marketing expert Andrew Hughes called this election a “tipping point” because of how many people consume news through their device.

“That means now you have to have knowledge of online platforms and methods to be effective at changing behaviour in politics,” he says.

The political influence of influencers is growing

Ferguson’s page posts news, but she says she’s not a journalist. She’s openly biased and admits she’s trying to sway voters to the left.

“I would describe it as incredibly left wing, progressive feminist content, I don’t think there’s any point in shying away from that language,” she said.

“I am a young, 26-year-old woman with my own company, and I am talking, especially, to an audience of young women, predominantly about the issues they are facing.”

She’s a former Labor party member, current Greens member and supports the independent cause. So much so, she sits on the advisory council of Viva Fund — which distributes money to female independent candidates.

She’s also fiercely anti-Peter Dutton — to the point she had T-shirts made.

Australian laws not keeping up

Ahead of the upcoming election, political marketing researcher at the Australian National University, Andrew Hughes, has been observing the influence of content creators and is concerned transparency isn’t top of mind for everyone.

“If you’re a person on TikTok [and] you’ve got 100,000 people watching you and watching your content, when you put a view out — are you influenced by a political party, or are you doing it because you’re a person?” he questioned.

“I think that point will become very hard to spot in the years ahead.”

He said Australian laws had failed to keep pace with the changing online environment.

“There’s been no clarity at all provided in Australian legislation on having podcasters identify their brand partnerships, and particularly whether or not they’re being paid any money for a brand partnership to do an interview which is friendly or not towards a leader,” he said.

“That’s the scary thing.”

Hughes has since told the ABC he thinks Bannister’s post, which said they were “made in collaboration” with Spender rather than “authorised by”, could be in breach of AEC rules. But a spokesperson for Spender said they were advised that the post met the requirements. 

Marketing agency, Sentiment, that worked with Spender to identify content creators, defended its work.

“We ensure compliance with all laws and regulations applicable to our business, which in an electoral campaign means working with clients on appropriate authorisation under the electoral laws,” the agency said in a statement. 

Podcasts allow personality over policy

November’s US election saw both Presidential candidates turn to podcasts to connect with an audience they may not otherwise have been able to — and they clocked up millions of views.

Joe Rogan’s interview with Donald Trump was watched on YouTube by more than 60 million people, while Shannon Sharpe’s chat with Kamala Harris reached 1.7 million eyes on YouTube. Dr Hughes warned the pivot to podcasts put greater emphasis on the person rather than their policies.

Hughes warned it put a greater emphasis on the person rather than their policies.

“It means we move away from policy analysis,” he said.

That was already becoming clear in the Australian campaign, Hughes said, with both leaders appearing in a series of podcast interviews.

“The leaders have come out quite clearly with a plan to make people like them, make people see that other side to them — the non-political side to them.”