I will admit there’s something oddly refreshing about seeing a reactionary dipshit politician openly being carried about by a billionaire like a handbag chihuahua …but I don’t want Hanson to get anything behind her that would give her the means to be even more of a shit.
Comment on Gina Rinehart funded flights and fashion show for Pauline Hanson
Nath@aussie.zone 1 day ago
Controversial take, but I don’t have as huge an issue with this. Senator Hanson is upfront about the gifts, it’s all in the open. She’s clear that Ms Rinehart is a friend and speaks to her about government policy. Gina is also pretty straight-up about her agenda and a desire to turn Australia MAGA. This influence is crystal clear. We (the public) are aware that this is happening and have the ability and opportunity to decide whether we will accept this relationship in our public figures (and vote accordingly). A straight-up transfer of money in return for senatorial votes would be corruption and a step too far. Yes, this friendship skirts that line pretty damn closely.
I have far more issues with billionaires influencing politics inside a veil of secrecy. We all know it is happening, but we don’t know for certain who those billionaires and politicians are, nor what policies they’re talking about.
I do have obvious concerns with the Gina/Pauline BFF thing, but I think the “secret mates” are a bigger problem.
Taleya@aussie.zone 1 day ago
Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 1 day ago
They’ve taken every opportunity to keep their close relationship and friendship low key. This is because it seems a genuine personal relationship, but there is genuine public interest in this relationship which they are only forthcoming about because of media spotlighting. So many would not, and still don’t, know about this power-pair if it weren’t for a significant and ongoing campaign journalistically uncovering this relationship.
I say journalistically, because many people in WA already are well aware of this relationship, but thats through the gossip grapevine, not established facts.
All in all, I think that comment is going very easy on actions Rhinehart and Hanson cynically wouldn’t be upfront about if they hadn’t been ‘humiliated’ into it. In other words I tip my hat to Guardian, ABC, Michael West and the many other journalists in the country who’ve actually delivered a public good for the community in this instance.
Nath@aussie.zone 1 day ago
Despite my differences with senator Hanson (and boy howdy, there are many), I will respect that what you see is what you get with her. She has one trick, and she does it openly and honestly. She hasn’t tried hiding expenses, she stomps on people in her own party when they are caught out and doesn’t try to defend them. I even think she was treated a bit harshly in 2003 when she was imprisoned for electoral fraud. I have never begrudged her existence, nor the rights of the whackos who have repeatedly voted for her. I see value in her as a litmus test of that end of the scale in the electorate. Yes she is racist. She, she is frankly awful. But on the other hand, those things are not against the law.
These two have been associated with one another in the public mind for about 18 months now. There has been intense scrutiny on them since they went to the US President’s Halloween party last year. They’ve both spoken publicly about their friendship when asked about it. As to keeping it low-key, how much do we know about the friends of any politician? They didn’t raise it, but didn’t shy away from it either.
I actually worked with the Minister of Veteran Affairs 25 years ago when he was a uni student. While we not exactly close, I’d have called him a mate at that time (I haven’t heard from him since I left there in 2004). So there’s a little low-key disclosure for you. 🙂
Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 18 hours ago
So I have a more narrow issue I’m targeting in your comment than what your reply here seems to be replying to. I’m not trying to attack you for saying something positive about Hanson. A lot of your points I wholeheartedly agree with. Its about giving an unnecessarily wide band of excusibility when compared to her political/finances conduct. She seems to have shown a pattern of corrupt intent when it comes to financing and seems to have no intention of acting in good faith or sincerity where there is no perceived threat of journalistic exposure. This has led to the endless rolling financing scandals that she shows no intention or capacity to alter.
Its not about an insincerity of her beliefs around race or her backward looking frankness of Australia. Its the seemingly duplicitous intent behind the finances that without journalists constantly holding her to account she’s loathe to acknowledge.
Take Sarah Martin’s (Guardian) reporting,
This is a random example I found within moments. She’s only acting honestly around her political finances when tge pressure is on.
This is more of an overview article
From the article,
Noticeably a lot of the behaviour in the article is from Ashby, which on face value supports your thesis that her Party may be dodgy, but she’s “upfront”. But this view cannot be accepted due to her dictatoral control over the party itself. This control means Ashby and the rest are conducting themselves with the formal or informal consent of Pauline Hanson by dint of her position of total constitutional control. She has the power and the knowledge of these failures to demand reporting improvements but seems not to.
Hanson president for life of One Nation. Published 12 May 2018 2:40pm, in the years since I haven’t found changes that reverses this course.
Looking back at your controversial take, what set me off was,
When it takes journalists digging through and asking questions about expenses and many instances of corrections to the public record after that fact, that demonstrates an intent to conceal, not an intent to be upfront.