Robert Irwin gave Pauline Hanson EXACTLY what she wanted with his extraordinary legal threat. But there’s one way he could make it even worse, writes PETER VAN ONSELEN

Robert Irwin’s threat to sue Pauline Hanson over a satirical cartoon image of him that she used as part of a hit on the Queensland government is a classic case of drawing attention to something that would otherwise go largely unnoticed have passed.

It is known as the Streisand effect. Barbara Streisand tried to stop the publication of a photo in 2003 that inadvertently revealed the location of her private Malibu vacation home. In doing so, she drew national and international attention.

The photos are still on the internet.

The One Nation leader has what she calls a ‘PleaseExplain’ cartoon series, making fun of her political opponents. It can be somewhat funny, but most of the time it isn’t. I can’t imagine many people bother to watch it that often.

Robert is pictured here with his ex-girlfriend Rorie Buckey at the GQ Australia Men of the Year Awards in Sydney on December 6

But by threatening to sue Hanson over the use of his likeness, Irwin has drawn all kinds of attention to the cartoon. Like, I would never have seen it.

And for what purpose and why? Because he used his image in a way that didn’t even treat him as the butt of the joke? Irwin was merely the vehicle for attacks on the Labor state government.

The cartoon features Irwin and Bluey, who show off the very best Queensland has to offer, but are stymied by issues with housing, youth crime and healthcare. Irwin’s character says, “I can’t believe this is the state of Queensland.”

Honestly, the young guy should think twice before instructing lawyers to send a demand letter. It really is a perfect example of the Streisand effect here in Australia.

The wildlife lawyer and reality TV star (and his lawyers, for that matter) don’t seem to understand that the cartoon series is an example of satire and parody, creating a much bigger hurdle to jump in proving defamatory accusations.

I’m no lawyer, but what was actually defamatory about the budget animation? That Irwin would take part in a skit about Queensland without receiving any handsome compensation? He doesn’t want others to think they too can use his image without the dollars flowing in?

Maybe I should sue Irwin for forcing me to write an article defending Pauline Hanson – not exactly my bread and butter.

A few years ago, Sky News presenter Chris Kenny successfully threatened the ABC with defamation over a Chaser skit in which he was the butt of the joke and their characterization of him was vulgar.

Pauline Hanson (pictured) doesn’t mind Irwin’s legal threat getting her attention

Robert Irwin (pictured) sent Pauline Hanson an ‘explain’ legal threat over her cartoon

The public broadcaster apologized and paid out an undisclosed amount, even though the Chaser team was certainly not happy about it.

But the Irwin case is very different.

For someone who makes a living by being a good guy and an Aussie who connects with the common people, summoning lawyers on 30 steps doesn’t necessarily fit the public image he’s going for.

And what did he think Pauline was going to do when she received the letter? Capitulate and fall over yourself to say sorry? He clearly doesn’t know much about Hanson’s history in politics over the last thirty years.

She thrives on free media coverage and controversy to boost her small party’s ability to get re-elected, and takes on anyone who joins in with lawsuits and intimidation.

Unfortunately for Irwin, in this case he gave Hanson exactly what she wanted. The only way he could make a bad situation worse for himself is to double down on his threats and follow through.

Charging Hanson would be exactly the kind of media circus she would enjoy in the run-up to the Queensland and federal elections, and he would be harmed by the attention, not her. And that regardless of whether he wins or loses in court.